^^ 


1'     ■;^      -■■■      ".""■'■    e'J.t   i?^**"!. 


ffm,  ^^M 

TKe 
Sig  Lipman  Memorial  Library 


Ouvio     y^^o 


UNIVERSITY    RELIGIOUS 
CONFERENCE     HOUSE 

WESTWOOD 


^J 


i(\\A 


DA^F  ^'^'^. 


^.>^ 


THE 

GUIDE  FOR  THE  PERPLEXED 


THE  GUIDE  FOR  THE 
PERPLEXED 


BY 


MOSES   MAIMONIDES 


TRANSLATED   FROM  THE  ORIGINAL  ARABIC    TEXT 


BY 


M.  FRIEDLANDER,  Ph.D 


SECOND  EDITION,  REVISED  THROUGHOUT 


LONDON 
GEORGE    ROUTLEDGE    &    SONS    LTD 
New  York  :    E.    P.    DUITON    &    CO 
191c 


Second  Edition,  1904;  Reprinted,  1910. 


■r^l  f? 


<:7^ 


PREFACE 


The  first  Edition  of  the  English  Translation  of  Maimonides'  Dalalat 
al-Hairin  being  exhausted  without  having  fuUy  supplied  the  demand, 
I  prepared  a  second,  revised  edition  of  the  Translation.  In  the  new 
edition  the  three  volumes  of  the  first  edition  have  been  reduced  to  one 
volume  by  the  elimination  of  the  notes ;  besides  Hebrew  words  and  phrases 
have  been  eliminated  or  transliterated.  By  these  changes  the  translator 
sought  to  produce  a  cheap  edition  in  order  to  bring  the  work  of 
Maimonides  within  the  reach  of  all  students  of  Theology  and  Jewish 
Literature. 

M.   FRIEDLANDER. 
Jews'   College,   July   1904. 


PREFACE    TO    VOLUME     ONE    OF     THE 

FIRST  EDITION 


In  compliance  with  a  desire  repeatedly  expressed  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Hebrew  Literature  Society,  I  have  undertaken  to  translate 
Maimonides'  Dalalat  al-Hairin,  better  known  by  the  Hebrew  title 
Moreh  Nebuchim,  and  I  offer  the  first  instalment  of  my  labours  in 
the  present  volume.  This  contains — (i)  A  short  Life  of  Maimonides, 
in  which  special  attention  is  given  to  his  alleged  apostasy.  (2)  An 
analysis  of  the  whole  of  the  Moreh  Nebuchim.  (3)  A  translation  of 
the  First  Part  of  this  work  from  the  Arabic,  with  explanatory  and 
critical  notes. 

Parts  of  the  Translation  have  been  contributed  by  Mr.  Joseph 
Abrahams,  B.A.,  Ph.D.,  and  Rev.  H.  GoUancz — the  Introduction 
by  the  former,  and  the  first  twenty-five  chapters  by  the  latter. 

In  conclusion  I  beg  to  tender  my  thanks  to  Rev ,  A .  Loewy,  Editor 
of  the  Publications  of  the  Hebrew  Literature  Society,  for  his  careful 
revision  of  my  manuscript  and  proofs,  and  to  Mr.  A.  Neubauer, 
M.A.,  for  his  kindness  in  supplying  me  with  such  inform^ation  as  I 
required . 

M.    FRIEDLANDER. 
Jews'    College,    Jnnt'    1S81. 


CONTENTS 


Life  of  Maimonides        .  , 

Moreh  Nebuchim  Literature. 


Analysis  of  the  Guide  for  the  Perplexed 


PACK 

XV 

xxvii 


Part  I. 


Introduction — 

Dedicatory  Letter                   .... 
The  Object  of  the  Guide      .... 

On  Similes        ...... 

Directions  for  the  Study  of  this  Work 

Introductory  Remarks           .... 

CHAPTER 

I 
II 

The  homonymity  of  Relent      .          . 
On  Genesis  iii.  5             ... 

III 

On  tahtiit  and  temunab 

IV 

On  raah,  hibbit  and  hazah 

V 

On  Exod.  xxiv.  10 

VI 

On  iih  and  ishshah,  ah  and  ahot 

VII 
VIII 

On  yalad     . 
On  makom 

IX 

On  kisse 

X 

On  ' alah,  yarad    . 

XI 
XII 

On  yaihab 
On  kam 

XIII 

On' amad 

XIV 

On  adam     . 

XV 

On  nazab,yazab  , 

XVI 

On  Zur 

XVII 

On  Mishnah  Hagigah  ii 

.  1        . 

XVIII 
XIX 

On  karab,  nagd ,  niggash 
On  male 

XX 

On  ram,  nissa 

XXI 

On  'abar 

XXII 

On  ba 

XXIII 

On  Taaa,  shub    . 

XXIV 

On  hal'ak 

XXV 

On  shaken 

XXVI 

On  "  The  Torah  speaketh  the  language 

XXVII 

On  Targum  of  Gen.  xlvi.  4  . 

XXVIII 

On  regel     ..... 

XXIX 

On  'azeb  ..... 

XXX 

On  ak'al 

XXXI,  XXXII      On  the  Limit  of  Man's  Intellect 

XXXIII  to  XXXVI     On  the  Study  and  the  Teaching 

XXXVII 

On  panim    ..... 

XXXVIII 

On  ahor 

XXXIX 

On  leb 

XL 

On  ruab     . 

XLI 
XLII 

On  nefesb    . 
On  bayyim-ma'vet 

man 


Met 


physics 


I 

2 

4 
8 


13 
14 
16 

17 
18 

19 
19 
zo 
21 

22 

23 
24 

25 

25 
25 
26 

27 
27 
i8 

29 

30 

32 
32 
33 
34 
34 
35 
37 
39 
39 
40,42 

43-52 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 


IX 


CONTENTS 


CUArTBK 

XLllI      On  ianaf 

XLIV      On'aym 

XLV     On  s'bama 

XLVI,  XLVII      On  the  Attribution  of  Scnsis  and  StMTJations  to  God 
XLVlll      The  Targum  of  ibjmti    and  raah 

XLIX      Figurative  Expressions  applied  to  Angels     . 
L     On  Faith  .  .  .  .  • 

LI-LX     On  Attributes 

LI      On    the    Necessity   of  Proving   the   Inadmissibility   of  Attributes 
reference  to  God 
LII      Classification  of  Attributes 
LIII     The  Arguments  of  the  Attributists    . 
LIV     On  Exod.  xxxiii.  13  ;  xxxiv.  7.  .  . 

LV     On   Attributes  implying  Corporeality,   Emotion,   Non-existence  and 
Comparison 
LVI     On  Attributes  denoting  Existence,  Life,  Power,  Wisdom  and  Will 
LVII     On  the  Identity  of  the  Essence  of  God  and  His  Attributes 
LVI  1 1      On  the  Negative  Sense  of  the  True  Attributes  of  God    . 

LIX     On  the  Character  of  the  Knowledge  of  God  Consisting  of  Negations 
LX     On  the  Difference  between  Positive  and  Negative  Attributes 
LXI      On  the  Names  of  God    ...... 

LXII      On   the    Divine    Names  composed   of  Four,  Twelve   and    Forty-two 
Letters       .  .  .  .  ■ 

LXIII     On  Eheh,  Tab  and  Shaddai 

LXIV     On   "The  Name  of  the  Lord,"  and  "The  Glory  of  God" 
LXV     On  the  phrase  "God  spake"    . 
,XVI      On  Exod.  xxxii.  16 

(VII      On  shahat  and  nab  .....-- 

LXVIII     On  the  Terms  :    The  Intcllectus,  the  Intelligens  and  the  Intelligibile 

LXIX     On  the  Primal  Cause 

LXX      On  the  attribute  rokeh  hd arahot 
LXXI     The  Origin  of  the  Kaldm         .... 
LXXII      A  Parallel  between  the  Universe  and  Man. 
LXXIII      Twelve  Propositions  of  the  /fj/'im     . 
LXXIV      Proofs  of  the  Kaldm  for  tbe  creatio  ex  nihilo 
LXXV      Proofs  of  the  Kaldm  for  the  Unity  of  God 
LXXVI     Proofs  of  the  Kaldm  for  the  Incorporeality  of  God 


LX) 


rAGX 

57 
58 
58 
59.  63 
64 

65 

67 
68-89 

68 
69 

72 
75 

78 

79 
80 
81 
83 
87 
89 

91 
93 

95 
96 

■    98 

99 
100 

lOZ 

105 
107 
113 

IZO 

133 

138 

141 


Part  II. 

The  Author's  Introduction.   The  Twenty-Six  Propositions  employed  by  the  Philo- 
sophers to  prove  the  Existence  of  God       ...... 

CHAPTtB. 

Philosophical   proofs  for   the   Existence,  Incorporeality,  and  Unity  of 
the  First  Cause  ...... 

On  the  Existence  of  Intelligences  or  purely  Spiritual  Beings     . 

The  Author  adopts  the  Theory  of  Aristotle  as  least  open  to  Objec 
tions      ........ 

The  Spheres  and  the  Causes  of  their  Motion  .  .  .  . 

Agreement  of  the  Aristotelian  Theory  with  the  Teaching  of  Scripture 

What  is  meant  by  the  Scriptural  Term  "Angels" 

The  Homonymity  of  the  term  "Angel"      .... 

On  the  Music  of  the  Spheres    ...... 

On  the  Number  of  the  Heavenly  Spheres    .... 

The  Influence  of  the  Spheres  upon  the   Earth  manifests  itself  in  fou 
different  ways  ...... 

The  Theory  of  Eccentricity  Preferable  to  that  of  Epicycles 

On  the  Nature  of  the  Divine  Influence  and  that  of  the  Spheres 

Three  Different  Theories  about  the  Beginning  of  the  Universe 


I 

II 
III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIH 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

XIII 


H5 


149 
»54 

,56 
156 
159 
160 
162 
163 
163 

164 
166 
168 
171 


CONTENTS 


XI 


CHAPTER  PAGF. 

XIV     Seven  Methods  by  which  the  Philosophers  sought  to  prove  the  Eternity 

of  the  Universe  .  .  .  .  .  .  .174 

XV     Aristotle  does  not  scientifically  demonstrate  his  Theory  .  .  .176 

XVI      The  Author  refutes  all  Objections  to  Creatio  ex  nibilo        .  .  .178 

XVII     The  Laws  of  Nature  apply  to  Things  Created,  but  do   not   regulate  the 

Creative  Act  which  produces  them  ....         178 

XVIII      Examinations  of  the  Proofs   of  Philosophers  for  the  Eternity  of  the 

Universe  .  .  .  .  .  ,  .  .181 

XIX      Design  in  Nature   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .184 

XX     The  Opinion  of  Aristotle  as  regards  Design  in  Nature     .  .  .189 

XXI     Explanation   of  the  Aristotelian    Theory  that    the    Universe    is    the 

necessary  Result  of  the  First  Cause        .  .  .  .190 

XXII      Objections  to  the  Theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  .  .         192 

XXIII  The  Theory  of  Creatio  ex  nibilo  is  preferable  to  that  of  the  Eternity  of 

the  Universe     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .195 

XXIV  Difficulty  of  Comprehending  the  Nature  and  the  Motion  of  the  Spheres 

according  to  the  Theory  of  Aristotle      .  .  .  .196 

XXV     The  Theory  of  Creation  is  adopted  because  of  its  own  Superiority,  the 

Proofs  based  on  Scripture  being  Inconclusive    .  .  .         199 

XXVI      Examination  of  a   passage  from  Pirke  di-Rahbi  Elieaer  in  reference  to 

Creation  ........        200 

XXVII     The  Theory  of  a   Future   Destruction   of  the  Universe   is   not  part  of 

the  Religious  Belief  taught  in  the  Bible  .  .  .        201 

XXVIII      Scriptural    Teaching    is    in    favour    of    the    Indestructibility    of    the 

Universe  ........        202 

XXIX      Explanation  of  Scriptural  Phrases  implying  the  Destruction  of  Heaven 

and  Earth         ........        204 

XXX      Philosophical  Interpretation  of  Genesis  i.-iv.  .  .  .  .        212 

XXXI     The  Institution  of  the  Sabbath  serves  (i)  to  Teach  the  Theory  of  Cre- 
ation, and  (2)  to  promote  Man's  Welfare  .  .  .         2l8 
XXXII     Three  Theories  concerning  Prophecy            .           .           .           .  .219 

XXXIII  The  Difference  between  Moses  and  the  other  Israelites  as  regards  the 

Revelation  on  Mount  Sinai  .  .  .  .  .221 

XXXIV  Explanation  of  Exodus  xxiii.  20  .....  .        223 

XXXV     The  Difference  between   Moses  and  the  other  Prophets  as  regards  the 

Miracles  wrought  by  them  ......  223 

XXXVI     On  the  Mental,  Physical  and  Moral  Faculties  of  the  Prophets             .  225 
XXXVII     On  the  Divine  Influence  upon  Man's  Imaginative  and  Mental  Faculties 

through  the  Active  Intellect          .....  227 

XXXVIII     Courage   and    Intuition    reach  the   highest    degree    of  Perfection    in 

Prophets           ........  229 

XXXIX     Moses  was  the  fittest  Prophet  to  Receive  and  Promulgate  the  Immut- 
able   Law,  which   succeeding  Prophets  merely  Taught   and 

Expounded       ........  231 

XL     The  Test  of  True  Prophecy 232 

XLI     What  is  Meant  by  "Vision" .  234 

XLII     Prophets  Received  Direct  Communication  only  in  Dreams  or  Visions  236 

XLIII      On  the  Allegories  of  the  Prophets      ......  238 

XLIV     On  the  Different  Modes  in  which  Prophets  Receive  Divine  Messages.  240 
XLV     The  Various  Classes  of  Prophets        .           .           .           .           .           .241 

XLVI     The  Allegorical  Acts  of  Prophets  formed  Parts  of  Prophetic  Visions.  245 

XLVII      On  the  Figurative  Style  of  the  Prophetic  Writings            .            .            .  247 
XLVIII      Scripture  ascribes  Phenomena  directly  produced   by  Natural  Causes  to 

God  as  the  First  Cause  of  all  things      ....  249 


Part  III. 

The  Author's  Introduction  and  Apology  for  Publishing,  contrary  to  the  Teaching  of 
the  Mishnah,  an  Interpretation  of  Ezek.  i.  .  .  .  .  . 


251 


Til 


CONTENTS 


CHAfTI* 
I 
II 
III 


rv 

V 


VI      On 


The  "  Four  Faces"  are  Human  Faces  with  four  different  peculiarities 
The  Hayyot  and  the  Ojannim  ..•■••• 
Further  Explanation   of  the   Haj^yof  and    the    Ofonnim  derived   from 

Ezck.  X.  ..•••••  • 

The  rendering  of  O/jn  by  Gilgal  in  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  . 

The   Vision    of  Ezckicl   is    divided   into    three    stages  :    (i)    Hayyot 

(  =  the  Spheres);  (2)   Ofannim   (  =  Earthly  elements)  ;  and 

(3)  the  man  above  the  //'IVV'"  (=^I"t<^"'6^"'^*') 
the    Difference    between   the    Vision    of    Ezekiel    and    that    of 
Isaiah  (vi.)      ...••••• 
VII     The  Different  Ways  in  which  the  Prophet  perceived  the   Three  Parts 
of  the  Mercahab  (Chariot)  .  .  •  •  • 

VIII      Man  has  the  Power  to  Control  his  Bodily  Wants  and  Earthly  Desires 
IX     The  Material  Element  in  Man  Prevents  him  from  Attaining  Perfec- 
tion      ....••••• 
X     God  is  not  the  Creator  of  Evil  ....•• 

XI      Man  is  the  Cause  of  his  own  Misfortunes    ..... 
XII     Three  Kinds  of  Evil  :   (i)  That  caused  by  the  Nature  of  Man  ;   (2) 
Caused  by  Man  to  Man  ;  (3)   Caused  by  Man  to  himself    . 

XIII  The  Universe  has  No  other  Purpose  than  its  own  Existence     . 

XIV  It  is  the  Will  of  the  Creator  that  the  Spheres  regulate  the  Affairs  of 

Mankind  .  .  •  •  •  •  _        • 

XV     Impossible  Things  are  not  ascribed  to  the  Creator,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
Prove  the  Impossibility  in  each  Individual  Case 
XVI     On  God's  Omniscience  ....•••• 

XVII     Five  Theories  concerning  Providence  .  .  •  •  • 

XVIII     Every  Individual  Member  of  Mankind  enjoys  the  Influence  of  Divine 
Providence  in  proportion  to  his  Intellectual  Perfection 
XIX     It  is  an  ancient  Error  to  Assume  that  God  takes  no  Notice  of  Man. 
XX     God's  Knowledge  is  Different  from  Man's  Knowledge  . 
XXI     The  Creator's  knowledge  of  His  Production  is  Perfect 
XXII     Object    of    the    Book    of   Job,  and    Explanation   of  the   First  Two 
Chapters  ....•••• 

XX HI      Job  and  his  Friends  Discuss  the  various  Theories  concerning  Provi- 
dence    ....••••• 

XXIV     On  Trials  and  Temptations     ....... 

XXV     The  Actions  of  God  are  Not  Purposeless  ..... 

XXVI     The  Divine  Precepts  Serve  a  certain  Purpose        .... 

XXVII     The  Object  of  the  Divine  Precepts   is  to   Secure  the  Well-being  of 
Man's  Soul  and  Body  ...... 

XXVIII     This  Object  is  easily  seen  in   some  Precepts,  whilst  in  others  it  is  only 
known  after  due  Reflection  ..... 

XXIX     On  the  Sabcans  or  Star-worshippers  ..... 

XXX     It  is  one  cf  the  Objects  of  the  Law  of  Moses  to  Oppose  Idolatry      . 

XXXI     The   Law    Promotes  the  Well-being  of    Man   by    teaching    Truth, 

Morality  and  Social  Conduct         ..... 

XXXII     Why  did  God  give  Laws  to  Oppose  Idolatry  instead  of  Uprooting  it 
directly  ?........ 

XXXHI      Another  chief  Object  of  the  Law  is  to  Train  Man  in   Mastering  his 
Appetites  and  Desires  ...... 

XXXIV     The  Law  is  based  on  the  ordinary  condition  of  man 
XXXV      Division  of  the  Precepts  into  Fourteen  Classes  .... 

XXXVI      First  Class  of  Precepts,  to  Know,  Love  and  Fear  God  . 
XXXVII      Second  Class,  Laws  concerning  Idolatry    ..... 

XXXVIII      Third  Class,  Moral  Precepts 

XXXIX      Fourth  Class,  Laws  relating  to  Charity       ..... 

XL      Fifth   Class,  Compensation   for  Injury   and  the  Duty  of  Preventing 
Sin  ......... 

XLI      Sixth  Class,  Punishment  of  the  Sinner        .  .  .  .  . 

XLII     Seventh  Class,  Equity  and  Honesty  ...... 


VAGI 

25s 
256 


257 
258 

259 
261 

264 
265 

267 

267 
272 

277 

279 
280 
282 

289 

290 
292 
295 

296 

299 
304 
307 
310 

312 

3"3 

3'5 

320 

321 

322 

327 
328 
329 
331 

332 
338 

339 

342 

344 
350 


CONTENTS 


xtn 


CHAPTER 

XLIII     Eighth  Class,  Sabbath  and  Festivals  .... 

Ninth  Class,  Prayer,  Tefillin,  Zizit  and  Meauzah 

Tenth  Class,  The  Temple,  its  Vessels  and  its  Ministers 

Eleventh  Class,  Sacrifices        ..... 

Twelfth  Class,  Distinction  between  Clean  and  Unclean  ;  and  on  Puri 
fication  ....... 

Thirteenth  Class,  Dietary  Laws        ..... 

Fourteenth  Class,  Marriage  Laws     ..... 

On  Scriptural  Passages  with  seemingly  Purposeless  Contents    . 

How  God  is  worshipped  by  a  Perfect  Man 

On  the  Fear  of  God      ....... 

Explanation   of  Hesed  (Love),  Miihpat   (Judgment),   and    Zcdakah 
(Righteousness) 

On  True  Wisdom 
Index  of  Scriptural  Passages     . 
Index  of  Quotations  from  the  Targumim 
Index  of  Quotations  from  the  Midrashim 
Index  of  Quotations  from  the  Talmud 
Index  of  References  to  Other  Works  of  Maimonides 
Index  of  References  to  Works  of  Science  and  Philosophy 
Alphabetical  Index  ...... 


XLIV 

XLV 

XLVI 

XLVII 

XLVIII 

XLIX 

L 

LI 

LII 

LIII 

LIV 


PAGE 
352 

354 
355 
359 

366 

370 
372 
380 

384 
391 

392 
393 
399 
409 
409 
410 
411 
412 
412 


THE   LIFE   OF   MOSES   MAIMONIDES 

"  Before  the  sun  of  Eli  had  set  the  sun  of  Samuel  had  risen."  Before  the 
voice  of  the  prophets  had  ceased  to  guide  the  people,  the  Interpreters  of  the 
Law,  the  Doctors  of  the  Talmud,  had  commenced  their  labours,  and  before 
the  Academies  of  Sura  and  of  Pumbadita  were  closed,  centres  of  Jewish 
thought  and  learning  were  already  flourishing  in  the  far  West.  The  circum- 
stances which  led  to  the  transference  of  the  head-quarters  of  Jewish  learning 
from  the  East  to  the  West  in  the  tenth  century  are  thus  narrated  in  the  Sefer 
ha-kabbalah  of  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  David  : 

"  After  the  death  of  Hezekiah,  the  head  of  the  Academy  and  Prince  of  the 
Exile,  the  academies  were  closed  and  no  new  Geonim  were  appointed.     But 
long  before  that  time  Heaven  had  willed  that  there  should  be  a  discontinu- 
ance of  the  pecuniary  gifts  which  used  to  be  sent  from  Palestine,  North  Africa 
and  Europe.     Heaven  had  also  decreed  that  a  ship  sailing  from  Bari  should 
be  captured  by  Ibn  Romahis,  commander  of  the  naval  forces  of  Abd-er- 
rahman  al-nasr.     Four  distinguished  Rabbis   were   thus    made   prisoners — 
Rabbi  Hushiel,  father  of  Rabbi  Hananel,  Rabbi  Moses,  father  of  Rabbi 
Hanok',  Rabbi    Shemarjahu,  son    of    Rabbi    Elhanan,  and  a  fourth  whose 
name  has  not  been  recorded.     They  were  engaged  in  a  mission  to  collect 
subsidies  in  aid  of  the  Academy  in  Sura.     The  captor  sold  them  as  slaves  ; 
Rabbi  Hushiel  was  carried  to  Kairuan,  R.  Shemarjahu  was  left  in  Alexandria, 
and  R.  Moses  was  brought  to  Cordova.     These  slaves  were  ransomed  by  their 
brethren  and  were  soon  placed  in  important  positions.     When  Rabbi  Moses 
was  brought  to  Cordova,  it  was  supposed  that  he  was  uneducated.     In  that 
city  there  was  a  synagogue  known  at  that  time  by  the  name  of  Keneset  ha- 
midrash,  and  Rabbi  Nathan,  renowned  for  his  great  piety,  was  the  head   of 
the  congregation.     The  members  of  the  community  used  to  hold   meetings 
at  which  the  Talmud  was  read  and  discussed.     One  day  when  Rabbi  Nathan 
was  expounding  the  Talmud  and  was  unable  to  give  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  passage  under  discussion.  Rabbi  Moses  promptly  removed  the  difficulty 
and  at  the  same  time  answered  several  questions  whch  were  submitted  to 
him.      Thereupon  R.  Nathan  thus  addressed  the  assembly  : — 'I  am  no  longer 
your  leader  ;   that  stranger  in  sackcloth  shall  henceforth  be  my  teacher,  and 
you  shall  appoint  him  to  be  your  chief.'     The  admiral,  on  hearing  of  the 
high  attainments  of  his  prisoner,  desired  to  revoke   the   sale,  but  the  king 
would  not  permit  this  retraction,  being  pleased  to  learn  that  his  Jewish  sub- 
jects were  no  longer  dependent  for  their  religious  instruction  on  the  schools 
in  the  East." 

Henceforth  the  schools  in  the  West  asserted  their  independence,  and  even 
surpassed  the  parent  institutions.  The  Caliphs,  mostly  opulent,  gave  every 
encouragement  to  philosophy  and  poetry  ;  and,  being  generally  liberal  in 
sentiment,  they  entertained  kindly  feelings  towards  their  Jewish  subjects. 

XV 


xvi  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

These  were  allowed  to  compete  for  the  acquisition  of  wealth  and  honour  on 
equal  terms  with  their  Mohammedan  fellow-citizens.  Philosophy  and  poetry 
were  consequently  cultivated  by  the  Jews  with  the  same  zest  as  by  the  Arabs. 
Ibn  Gabirol,  Ibn  Hasdai,  Judah  ha-levi,  Hananel,  Alfasi,  the  Ibn  Ezras, 
and  others  who  flourished  in  that  period  were  the  ornament  of  their  age, 
and  the  pride  of  the  Jews  at  all  times.  The  same  favourable  condition 
was  maintained  during  the  reign  of  the  Omeyades  ;  but  when  the  Moravides 
and  the  Almohades  came  into  power,  the  horizon  darkened  once  more,  and 
misfortunes  threatened  to  destroy  the  fruit  of  several  centuries.  Amidst 
this  gloom  there  appeared  a  brilliant  luminary  which  sent  forth  rays  of  light 
and  comfort :  this  was  Moses  Maimonides. 

Moses,  the  son  of  Maimon,  was  born  at  Cordova,  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  4895 
(March  30,  11 35).  Although  the  date  of  his  birth  has  been  recorded  with 
the  utmost  accuracy,  no  trustworthy  notice  has  been  preserved  concerning 
the  early  period  of  his  life.  But  his  entire  career  is  a  proof  that  he  did  not 
pass  his  youth  in  idleness  ;  his  education  must  have  been  in  harmony  with 
the  hope  of  his  parents,  that  one  day  he  would,  like  his  father  and  forefathers, 
hold  the  honourable  office  of  Dayyan  or  Rabbi,  and  distinguish  himself  in 
theological  learning.  It  is  probable  that  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud  formed  the 
chief  subjects  of  his  study  ;  but  he  unquestionably  made  the  best  use  of  the 
opportunities  which  Mohammedan  Spain,  and  especially  Cordova,  afforded 
him  for  the  acquisition  of  general  knowledge.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  any  of 
his  writings  who  were  his  teachers ;  his  father,  as  it  seems,  was  his  principal 
guide  and  instructor  in  many  branches  of  knowledge.  David  Conforte,  in 
his  historical  work,  Kore  ha-dorot,  states  that  Maimonides  was  the  pupil  of 
two  eminent  men,  namely.  Rabbi  Joseph  Ibn  Migash  and  Ibn  Roshd  (Aver- 
roes) ;  that  by  the  former  he  was  instructed  in  the  Talmud,  and  by  the  latter 
in  philosophy.  This  statement  seems  to  be  erroneous,  as  Maimonides  was 
only  a  child  at  the  time  when  Rabbi  Joseph  died,  and  already  far  advanced 
in  years  when  he  became  acquainted  with  the  wTitings  of  Ibn  Roshd.  The 
origin  of  this  mistake,  as  regards  Rabbi  Joseph,  can  easily  be  traced.  Mai- 
monides in  his  Mishneh  Tora,  employs,  in  reference  to  R.  Isaac  Alfasi  and  R. 
Joseph,  the  expression  "  my  teachers  "  (rabbotai),  and  this  expression,  by 
which  he  merely  describes  his  indebtedness  to  their  writings,  has  been  taken 
in  its  literal  meaning. 

Whoever  his  teachers  may  have  been,  it  is  evident  that  he  was  well  prepared 
by  them  for  his  future  mission.  At  the  age  of  twenty-three  he  entered  upon 
his  literary  career  with  a  treatise  on  the  Jewish  Calendar.  It  is  unknown 
where  this  work  was  composed,  whether  in  Spain  or  in  Africa.  The  author 
merely  states  that  he  wrote  it  at  the  request  of  a  friend,  whom  he,  however, 
leaves  unnamed.  The  subject  was  generally  considered  to  be  very  abstruse, 
and  to  involve  a  thorough  knowledge  of  mathematics.  Maimonides  must, 
therefore,  even  at  this  early  period,  have  been  regarded  as  a  profound  scholar 
by  those  who  knew  him.  The  treatise  is  of  an  elementary  character. — It 
was  probably  about  the  same  time  that  he  wrote,  in  Arabic,  an  explanation 
of  Logical  terms,  Millot  higgayon,  which  Moses  Ibn  Tibbon  translated 
into  Hebrew. 

The  earlier  period  of  his  life  does  not  seem  to  have  been  marked  by  any 
incident  worth  noticing.     It  may,  however,  be  easily  conceived  that  the  later 


GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xvii 

period  of  his  life,  which  was  replete  with  interesting  incidents,  engaged  the 
exclusive  attention  of  his  biographers.  So  much  is  certain,  that  his  youth 
was  beset  with  trouble  and  anxiety  ;  the  peaceful  development  of  science 
and  philosophy  was  disturbed  by  wars  raging  between  Mohammedans  and 
Christians,  and  also  between  the  several  Mohammedan  sects.  The  Mora- 
vides,  who  had  succeeded  the  Omeyades,  were  opposed  to  liberality  and 
toleration  ;  but  they  were  surpassed  in  cruelty  and  fanaticism  by  their  suc- 
cessors. Cordova  was  taken  by  the  Almohades  in  the  year  1 148,  when  Mai- 
monides  was  about  thirteen  years  old.  The  victories  of  the  Almohades,  first 
under  the  leadership  of  the  Mahadi  Ibn  Tamurt,  and  then  under  Abd-al- 
mumcn,  were,  according  to  all  testimonies,  attended  by  acts  of  excessive 
intolerance.  Abd-al-mumen  would  not  suffer  in  his  dominions  any  other 
faith  but  the  one  which  he  himself  confessed.  Jews  and  Christians  had  the 
choice  between  Islam  and  emigration  or  a  martyr's  death.  The  Sefer  ha- 
kabbalah  contains  the  following  description  of  one  of  the  persecutions  which 
then  occurred  : 

"  After  the  death  of  R.  Joseph  ha-levi  the  study  of  the  Torah  was  inter- 
rupted, although  he  left  a  son  and  a  nephew,  both  of  whom  had  under  his 
tuition  become  profound  scholars.  '  The  righteous  man  (R.  Joseph)  was 
taken  away  on  account  of  the  approaching  evils.'  After  the  death  of  R. 
Joseph  there  came  for  the  Jews  a  time  of  oppression  and  distress.  They 
quitted  their  homes,  '  Such  as  were  for  death,  to  death,  and  such  as  were  for 
the  sword,  to  the  sword  ;  and  such  as  were  for  the  famine,  to  the  famine,  and 
such  as  were  for  the  captivity,  to  the  captivity  ' ;  and — it  might  be  added  to 
the  words  of  Jeremiah  (xv.  2) — '  such  as  were  for  apostasy,  to  apostasy.'  All 
this  happened  through  the  sword  of  Ibn  Tamurt,  who,  in  4902  (1142),  de- 
termined to  blot  out  the  name  of  Israel,  and  actually  left  no  trace  of  the  Jews 
in  any  part  of  his  empire." 

Ibn  Verga  in  his  work  on  Jewish  martyrdom,  in  Shebet  Jehudah,  gives 
the  following  account  of  events  then  happening  : — "  In  the  year  4902  the 
armies  of  Ibn  Tamurt  made  their  appearance.  A  proclamation  was  issued 
that  any  one  who  refused  to  adopt  Islam  would  be  put  to  death,  and  his 
property  would  be  confiscated.  Thereupon  the  Jews  assembled  at  the  gate 
of  the  royal  palace  and  implored  the  king  for  mercy.  He  answered — '  It  is 
because  I  have  compassion  on  you,  that  I  command  you  to  become  Musle- 
mim  ;  for  I  desire  to  save  you  from  eternal  punishment.'  The  Jews  replied 
— '  Our  salvation  depends  on  our  observance  of  the  Divine  Law  ;  you  are  the 
master  of  our  bodies  and  of  our  property,  but  our  souls  will  be  judged  by  the 
King  who  gave  them  to  us,  and  to  whom  they  will  return  ;  whatever  be  our 
future  fate,  you,  O  king,  will  not  be  held  responsible  for  it.'  '  I  do  not 
desire  to  argue  with  you,'  said  the  king  J  '  f or  I  know  you  will  argue  according 
to  your  own  religion.  It  is  my  absolute  will  that  you  either  adopt  my  reli- 
gion or  be  put  to  death.'  The  Jews  then  proposed  to  emigrate,  but  the 
king  would  not  allow  his  subjects  to  serve  another  king.  In  vain  did  the  Jews 
implore  the  nobles  to  intercede  in  their  behalf ;  the  king  remained  inexor- 
able. Thus  many  congregations  forsook  their  religion ;  but  within  a 
month  the  king  came  to  a  sudden  death  ;  the  son,  believing  that  his  father 
had  met  with  an  untimely  end  as  a  punishment  for  his  cruelty  to  the  Jews, 
assured  the  involuntary  converts  that  it  would  be  indifferent  to  him  what 


xviii  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

religion  they  professed.  Hence  many  Jews  returned  at  once  to  the  religion 
of  their  fathers,  while  others  hesitated  for  some  time,  from  fear  that  the  king 
meant  to  entrap  the  apparent  converts." 

From  sucli  records  it  appears  that  during  these  calamities  some  of  the  Jews 
fled  to  foreign  countries,  some  died  as  martyrs,  and  many  others  submitted 
for  a  time  to  outvvard  conversion.  Which  course  was  followed  by  the  family 
of  Maimon  ?  Did  they  sacrifice  personal  comfort  and  safety  to  their  reli- 
gious con\'iction,  or  did  they,  on  the  contrary,  for  the  sake  of  mere  worldly 
considerations  dissemble  their  faith  and  pretend  that  they  completely  sub- 
mitted to  the  dictates  of  the  tyrant  I  An  answer  to  this  question  presents 
itself  in  the  following  note  which  Maimonides  has  appended  to  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Mishnah  :  "  I  have  now  finished  this  work  in  accordance  wdth  my 
promise,  and  I  fervently  beseech  the  Almighty  to  save  us  from  error.  If 
there  be  one  who  shall  discover  an  inaccuracy  in  this  Commentary  or  shall 
have  a  better  explanation  to  offer,  let  my  attention  be  directed  unto  it ; 
and  let  me  be  exonerated  by  the  fact  that  I  have  worked  with  far  greater 
application  than  any  one  who  writes  for  the  sake  of  pay  and  profit,  and  that 
I  have  worked  under  the  most  trying  circumstances.  For  Heaven  had  or- 
dained that  we  be  exiled,  and  we  were  therefore  driven  about  from  place  to 
place  ;  I  was  thus  compelled  to  work  at  the  Commentary  while  travelling  by 
land,  or  crossing  the  sea.  It  might  have  sufficed  to  mention  that  during  that 
time  I,  in  addition,  was  engaged  in  other  studies,  but  I  preferred  to  give  the 
above  explanation  in  order  to  encourage  those  who  wish  to  criticise  or  anno- 
tate the  Commentary,  and  at  the  same  time  to  account  for  the  slow  progress 
of  this  work.  I,  Moses,  the  son  of  Maimon,  commenced  it  when  I  was 
twenty-three  years  old,  and  finished  it  in  Egypt,  at  the  age  of  thirty[-three] 
years,  in  the  year  1479  Sel.  (1168)." 

The  S^/er  Haredim  of  R.  Eleazar  Askari  of  Safed  contains  the  following 
statement  of  Maimonides: — "On  Sabbath  evening,  the  4th  of  lyyar,  4925 
(1165),  I  went  on  board  ;  on  the  following  Sabbath  the  waves  threatened 
to  destroy  our  lives.  .  ,  .  On  the  3rd  of  Sivan,  I  arrived  safely  at  Acco,  and 
was  thus  rescued  from  apostasy.  .  .  .  On  Tuesday,  the  4th  of  Marheshvan, 
4926,  I  left  Acco,  arrived  at  Jerusalem  after  a  journey  beset  with  difficulties 
and  with  dangers,  and  prayed  on  the  spot  of  the  great  and  holy  house  on  the 
4th,  5th,  and  6th  of  Marheshvan.  On  Sunday,  the  9th  of  that  month,  I 
left  Jerusalem  and  visited  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  in  Hebron." 

From  these  two  statements  it  may  be  inferred  that  in  times  of  persecution 
Maimonides  and  his  family  did  not  seek  to  protect  their  lives  and  property 
by  dissimulation.  They  submitted  to  the  troubles  of  exile  in  order  that  they 
might  remain  faithful  to  their  religion.  Carmoly,  Geiger,  Munk,  and  others 
are  of  opinion  that  the  treatise  of  Maimonides  on  involuntary  apostasy,  as 
well  as  the  accounts  of  some  Mohammedan  authors,  contain  strong  evidence 
to  show  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  family  of  Maimon  publicly  professed 
their  belief  in  Mohammed.  A  critical  examination  of  these  documents  com- 
pels us  to  reject  their  evidence  as  inadmissible. — After  a  long  period  of  trouble 
and  anxiety,  the  family  of  Maimon  arrived  at  Fostat,  in  Egypt,  and  settled 
there.  David,  the  brother  of  Moses  Maimonides,  carried  on  a  trade  in 
precious  stones,  while  Moses  occupied  himself  uith  his  studies  and  inter- 
ested himself  in  the  communal  affairs  of  the  Jews. 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xix 

It  appears  that  for  some  time  Moses  was  supported  by  his  brother,  and 
when  this  brother  died,  he  earned  a  living  by  practising  as  a  pliysician  ;  but  he 
never  sought  or  derived  any  benefit  from  his  services  to  his  community,  or 
from  his  correspondence  or  from  the  works  he  wrote  for  the  instruction  of 
his  brethren  ;  the  satisfaction  of  being  of  service  to  his  fellow-creatures  was 
for  him  a  suthcient  reward. 

The  first  public  act  in  which  Maimonides  appears  to  have  taken  a  leading 
part  was  a  decree  promulgated  by  the  Rabbinical  authorities  in  Cairo  in  the 
year  1 167.  The  decree  begins  as' follows  :— "  In  times  gone  by,  when  storms 
and  tempests  threatened  us,  we  used  to  wander  about  from  place  to  place  ; 
but  by  the  mercy  of  the  Almighty  we  have  now  been  enabled  to  find  here  a 
resting-place.  On  our  arrival,  we  noticed  to  our  great  dismay  that  the 
learned  were  disunited  ;  that  none  of  them  turned  his  attention  to  the  needs 
of  the  congregation.  We  therefore  felt  it  our  duty  to  undertake  the  task  of 
guiding  the  holy  flock,  of  inquiring  into  the  condition  of  the  community,  of 
"  reconciling  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  their  children,"  and  of_  correcting 
their  corrupt  ways.  The  injuries  are  great,  but  we  may  succeed  in  effecting 
a  cure,  and— in  accordance  with  the  words  of  the  prophet—'  I  will  seek  the 
lost  one,  and  that  which  has  been  cast  out  I  will  bring  back,  and  the  broken 
one  I  will  cure  '  (Micah  iv.  6).  When  we  therefore  resolved  to  take  the 
management  of  the  communal  affairs  into  our  hands,  we  discovered  the  ex- 
istence of  a  serious  evil  in  the  midst  of  the  community,"  etc. 

It  was  probably  about  that  time  that  Maimon  died.  Letters  of  condo- 
lence were  sent  to  his  son  Moses  from  all  sides,  both  from  Mohammedan  and 
from  Christian  countries  ;  in  some  instances  the  letters  were  several  months 
on  their  way  before  they  reached  their  destination. 

The  interest  which  Maimonides  now  took  in  communal  affairs  did  not 
prevent  him  from  completing  the  great  and  arduous  work,  the  Commentary 
on  the  Mishnah,  which  he  had  begun  in  Spain  and  continued  during  his 
wanderings  in  Africa.  In  this  Commentary  he  proposed  to  give  the  quint- 
essence of  the  Gemara,  to  expound  the  meaning  of  each  dictum  in  the  Mish- 
nah, and  to  state  which  of  the  several  opinions  had  received  the  sanction  of 
the  Talmudical  authorities.  His  object  in  writing  this  work  was  to  enable 
those  who  are  not  disposed  to  study  the  Gemara,  to  understand  the  Mishnah, 
and  to  facilitate  the  study  of  the  Gemara  for  those  who  are  willing  to  engage 
in  it.  The  commentator  generally  adheres  to  the  explanations  given  in  the 
Gemara,  and  it  is  only  in  cases  where  the  halakah,  or  practical  law,  is  not 
affected,  that  he  ventures  to  dissent.  lie  acknowledges  the  benefit  he  de- 
rived from  such  works  of  his  predecessors  as  the  Halakot  of  Alfasi,  and  the 
writings  of  the  Geonim,  but  afterwards  he  asserted  that  errors  which  were 
discovered  in  his  works  arose  from  his  implicit  reliance  on  those  authorities. 
His  originality  is  conspicuous  in  the  Introduction  and  in  the  treatment  of 
general  principles,  which  in  some  instances  precedes  the  exposition  of  an 
entire  section  or  chapter,  in  others  that  of  a  single  rule.  The  commentator 
is  generally  concise,  except  when  occasion  is  afforded  to  treat  of  ethical  and 
theological  principles,  or  of  a  scientific  subject,  such  as  weights  and  measures, 
or  mathematical  and  astronomical  problems.  Although  exhortations  to 
virtue  and  warnings  against  vice  are  found  in  aU  parts  of  his  work,  they  are 
especially  abundant  in  the  Commentary  on  Abot,  which  is  prefaced   by  a 


XX  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

separate  psychological  treatise,  called  The  Eight  Chapters.  The  dictum 
"  He  who  speaketh  much  commits  a  sin,"  elicited  a  lesson  on  the  economy  of 
speech  ;  the  explanation  of  'olam  ha-ha  in  the  treatise  Sanhedrin  (xi.  l)  led 
him  to  discuss  the  principles  of  faith,  and  to  lay  down  the  thirteen  articles 
of  the  Jewish  creed.  The  Commentary  was  written  in  Arabic,  and  was 
subsequently  translated  into  Hebrew  and  into  other  languages.  The  esti- 
mation in  which  the  Commentary  was  held  may  be  inferred  from  the  follow- 
ing fact :  When  the  Jews  in  Italy  became  acquainted  with  its  method  and 
spirit,  through  a  Hebrew  translation  of  one  of  its  parts,  they  sent  to  Spain 
in  search  of  a  complete  Hebrew  version  of  the  Commentary.  R.  Simhah, 
who  had  been  entrusted  with  the  mission,  found  no  copy  extant,  but  he 
succeeded,  through  the  influence  of  Rabbi  Shelomoh  ben  Aderet,  in  causing 
a  Hebrew  translation  of  this  important  work  to  be  prepared. — In  the  Intro- 
duction, the  author  states  that  he  has  written  a  Commentary  on  the  Baby- 
lonian Talmud  treatise  Hullin  and  on  nearly  three  entire  sections,  viz.,  Moed, 
Nashim,  and  Nezikin.  Of  all  these  Commentaries  only  the  one  on  Rosh 
ha-shanah  is  known. 

In  the  year  1 1 72  Maimonides  wrote  the  Iggeret  Teman,  or  Petah-tikvah 
("  Letter  to  the  Jews  in  Yemen,"  or  "  Opening  of  hope  ")  in  response  to  a 
letter  addressed  to  him  by  Rabbi  Jacob  al-Fayumi  on  the  critical  condition 
of  the  Jews  in  Yemen.  Some  of  these  Jews  had  been  forced  into  apostasy  ; 
others  were  made  to  believe  that  certain  passages  in  the  Bible  alluded  to  the 
mission  of  Mohammed  ;  others  again  had  been  misled  by  an  impostor  who 
pretended  to  be  the  Messiah.  The  character  and  style  of  Maimonides'  reply 
appear  to  have  been  adapted  to  the  intellectual  condition  of  the  Jews  in 
Yemen,  for  whom  it  was  written.  These  probably  read  the  Bible  with 
Midrashic  commentaries,  and  preferred  the  easy  and  attractive  Agadah  to 
the  more  earnest  study  of  the  Halakah.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that 
the  letter  contains  remarks  and  interpretations  which  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  the  philosophical  and  logical  method  by  which  all  the  other  works  of 
Maimonides  are  distinguished.  After  a  few  complimentary  words,  in  which 
the  author  modestly  disputes  the  justice  of  the  praises  lavished  upon  him, 
he  attempts  to  prove  that  the  present  sufferings  of  the  Jews,  together  with 
the  numerous  instances  of  apostasy,  were  foretold  by  the  prophets,  especially 
by  Daniel,  and  must  not  perplex  the  faithful.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  he 
continues,  that  the  attempts  made  in  past  times  to  do  away  with  the  Jewish 
religion,  had  invariably  failed  ;  the  same  would  be  the  fate  of  the  present 
attempts ;  for  "  religious  persecutions  are  of  but  short  duration."  The 
arguments  which  profess  to  demonstrate  that  in  certain  Biblical  passages 
allusion  is  made  to  Mohammed,  are  based  on  interpretations  which  are  totally 
opposed  to  common  sense.  He  urges  that  the  Jews,  faithfully  adhering  to 
their  religion,  should  impress  their  children  with  the  greatness  of  the  Reve- 
lation on  Mount  Sinai,  and  of  the  miracles  wrought  through  Moses ;  they 
also  should  remain  firm  in  the  belief  that  God  will  send  the  Messiah  to  deliver 
their  nation,  but  they  must  abandon  futile  calculations  of  the  Messianic 
period,  and  beware  of  impostors.  Although  there  be  signs  which  indicate 
the  approach  of  the  promised  deliverance,  and  the  times  seem  to  be  the 
period  of  the  last  and  most  cruel  persecution  mentioned  in  the  visions  of 
Daniel  (xi.  and  xii.),  the  person  in  Yemen  who  pretends  to  be  the  Messiah 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxi 

is  an  impostor,  and  if  care  be  not  taken,  he  is  sure  to  do  mischief.^  Similar 
impostors  in  Cordova,  France,  and  Africa,  have  deceived  the  multitude  and 
brought  great  troubles  upon  the  Jews.— Yet,  inconsistently  with  this  sound 
advice  the  author  gives  a  positive  date  of  the  Messianic  time,  on  the  basis  of 
an  old  tradition  ;  the  inconsistency  is  so  obvious  that  it  is  impossible  to 
attribute  this  passage  to  Maimonides  himself.  It  is  probably  spurious,  and 
has,  perhaps,  been  added  by  the  translator.  With  the  exception  of  the 
rhymed  introduction,  the  letter  was  written  in  Arabic,  "  in  order  that  all 
should  be  able  to  read  and  understand  it "  ;  for  that  purpose  the  author 
desires  that  copies  should  be  made  of  it,  and  circulated  among  the  Jews. 
Rabbi  Nahum,  of  the  Maghreb,  translated  the  letter  into  Hebrew. 

The  success  in  the  first  great  undertaking  of  explaining  the  Mishnah  en- 
couraged Maimonides  to  propose  to  himself  another  task  of  a  still  more 
ambitious  character.  In  the  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah,  it  was  his  object 
that  those  who  were  unable  to  read  the  Gemara  should  be  made  acquainted 
with  the  results  obtained  by  the  Amoraim  in  the  course  of  their  discussions 
on  the  Mishnah.  But  the  Mishnah,  with  the  Commentary,  was  not  such  a 
code  of  laws  as  might  easily  be  consulted  in  cases  of  emergency  ;  only  the 
initiated  would  be  able  to  find  the  section,  the  chapter,  and  the  paragraph 
in  which  the  desired  information  could  be  found.  The  halakah  had,  be- 
sides, been  further  developed  since  the  time  when  the  Talmud  was  compiled. 
The  changed  state  of  things  had  suggested  new  questions ;  these  were  dis- 
cussed and  settled  by  the  Geonim,  whose  decisions,  being  contained  in  special 
letters  or  treatises,  were  not  generally  accessible.  Maimonides  therefore 
undertook  to  compile  a  complete  code,  which  would  contain,  in  the  language 
and  style  of  the  Mishnah,  and  without  discussion,  the  whole  of  the  Written 
and  the  Oral  Law,  all  the  precepts  recorded  in  the  Talmud,  Sifra,  Sifre  and 
Tosefta,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Geonim.  According  to  the  plan  of  the 
author,  this  work  was  to  present  a  solution  of  every  question  touching  the 
religious,  moral,  or  social  duties  of  the  Jews.  It  was  not  in  any  way  his  ob- 
ject to  discourage  the  study  of  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrash  ;  he  only  sought 
to  diffuse  a  knowledge  of  the  Law  amongst  those  who,  through  incapacity  or 
other  circumstances,  were  precluded  from  that  study.  In  order  to  ensure 
the  completeness  of  the  code,  the  author  drew  up  a  list  of  the  six  hundred 
and  thirteen  precepts  of  the  Pentateuch,  divided  them  into  fourteen  groups, 
these  again  he  subdivided,  and  thus  showed  how  many  positive  and  negative 
precepts  were  contained  in  each  section  of  the  Mishneh  torah.  The  prin- 
ciples by  which  he  was  guided  in  this  arrangement  were  laid  down  in  a 
separate  treatise,  called  Sefer  ha-mizvot.  Works  of  a  similar  kind,  written 
by  his  predecessors,  as  the  Halakot  gedolot  of  R.  Shimon  Kahira,  and  the 
several  Azharot  were,  according  to  Maimonides,  full  of  errors,  because  their 
authors  had  not  adopted  any  proper  method.  But  an  examination  of  the 
rules  laid  down  by  Maimonides  and  of  their  application  leads  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  his  results  were  not  less  arbitrary ;  as  has,  in  fact,  been  shown  by 
the  criticisms  of  Nahmanides.  The  Sejer  Z^^-w/zt'o/ was  written  in  Arabic, 
and  thrice  translated  into  Hebrew,  namely,  by  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  Hisdai, 
Rabbi  Shelomoh  ben  Joseph  ben  Job,  and  Rabbi  Moses  IbnTibbon.  Mai- 
monides himself  desired  to  translate  the  book  into  Hebrew,  but  to  his  dis- 
appointment he  found  no  time. 


xxii  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

This  Sefer  ha-mizvot  was  executed  as  a  preparation  for  his  principal  work, 
the  Mishneh  Torah,  or  Tad  ha-hazakah,  which  consists  of  an  Introduction 
and  fourteen  Books.  In  the  Introduction  the  author  first  describes  the 
chain  of  tradition  from  Moses  to  the  close  of  the  Talmud,  and  then  he  ex- 
plains his  method  in  compiling  the  work.  He  distinguishes  between  the 
dicta  found  in  the  Talmud,  Sifre,  Sifra,  or  Tosefta,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
dicta  of  the  Geonim  on  the  other  ;  the  former  were  binding  on  all  Jews,  the 
latter  only  as  far  as  their  necessity  and  their  utility  or  the  authority  of  their 
propounders  was  recognized.  Having  once  for  all  stated  the  sources  from 
which  he  compiled  his  work,  he  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  name  in  each 
case  the  authority  for  his  opinion  or  the  particular  passage  from  which  he 
derived  his  dictum.'  Any  addition  of  references  to  each  paragraph  he  prob- 
ably considered  useless  to  the  uninformed  and  superfluous  to  the  learned. 
At  a  later  time  he  discovered  his  error,  he  being  himself  unable  to  find  again 
the  sources  of  some  of  his  decisions.  Rabbi  Joseph  Caro,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Mishneh  Torah,  termed  Keseph  Mishneh,  remedied  this  deficiency. 
The  Introduction  is  followed  by  the  enumeration  of  the  six  hundred  and 
thirteen  precepts  and  a  description  of  the  plan  of  the  work,  its  division  into 
fourteen  books,  and  the  division  of  the  latter  into  sections,  chapters,  and 
paragraphs. 

According  to  the  author,  the  Mishneh  Torah  is  a  mere  compendium  of  the 
Talmud;  but  he  found  sufficient  opportunities  to  display  his  real  genius,  his 
philosophical  mind,  and  his  ethical  doctrines.  For  in  stating  what  the  tra- 
ditional Law  enjoined  he  had  to  exercise  his  own  judgment,  and  to  decide 
whether  a  certain  dictum  was  meant  to  be  taken  literally  or  figuratively  ; 
whether  it  was  the  final  decision  of  a  majority  or  the  rejected  opinion  of  a 
minority  ;  whether  it  was  part  of  the  Oral  Law  or  a  precept  founded  on  the 
scientific  views  of  a  particular  author  ;  and  whether  it  was  of  universal  appli- 
cation or  was  only  intended  for  a  special  period  or  a  special  locality.  The 
first  Book,  Sejer  ha-madda',  is  the  embodiment  of  his  own  ethical  and  theo- 
logical theories,  although  he  frequently  refers  to  the  Sayings  of  our  Sages, 
and  employs  the  phraseology  of  the  Talmud.  Similarly,  the  section  on  the 
Jewish  Calendar,  Hilkot  ha-ibur,  may  be  considered  as  his  original  work. 
In  each  group  of  the  halakot,  its  source,  a  certain  passage  of  the  Pentateuch, 
is  first  quoted,  with  its  traditional  interpretation,  and  then  the  detailed  rules 
follow  in  systematic  order.  The  Mishneh  Torah  was  written  bv  the  author 
in  pure  Hebrew  ;  when  subsequently  a  friend  asked  him  to  translate  it  into 
Arabic,  he  said  he  would  prefer  to  have  his  Arabic  writings  translated  into 
Hebrew  instead  of  the  reverse.  The  style  is  an  imitation  of  the  Mishnah  ; 
he  did  not  choose,  the  author  says,  the  philosophical  style,  because  that  would 
be  unintelligible  to  the  common  reader  ;  nor  did  he  select  the  prophetic 
style,  because  that  would  not  harmonize  with  the  subject. 

Ten  years  of  hard  work  by  day  and  by  night  were  spent  in  the  compilation 
of  this  code,  which  had  originally  been  undertaken  for  "  his  own  benefit,  to 
save  him  in  his  advanced  age  the  trouble  and  the  necessity  of  consulting  the 
Talmud  on  every  occasion."  Maimonidcs  knew  very  well  that  his  work 
would  meet  with  the  opposition  of  those  whose  ignorance  it  would  expose, 
also  of  those  who  were  incapable  of  comprehending  it,  and  of  those  who  were 
inclined  to  condemn  every  deviation  from  their  own  preconceived  notions. 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxiii 

But  he  had  the  satisfaction  to  learn  that  it  was  well  received  in  most  of  the 
congregations  of  Israel,  and  that  there  was  a  general  desire  to  possess  and 
study  it.  This  success  confirmed  him  in  his  hope  that  at  a  later  time,  when 
all  cause  for  jealousy  would  have  disappeared,  the  Mishneh  Torah  would  be 
received  by  all  Jews  as  an  authoritative  code.  This  hope  has  not  been  real- 
ized. The  genius,  earnestness,  and  zeal  of  Maimonides  are  generally  recog- 
nized ;  but  there  is  no  absolute  acceptance  of  his  dicta.  The  more  he 
insisted  on  his  infallibility,  the  more  did  the  Rabbinical  authorities  examine 
his  words  and  point  out  errors  wherever  they  believed  that  they  could  dis- 
cover any.  It  was  not  always  from  base  motives,  as  contended  by  Maimon- 
ides and  his  followers,  that  his  opinions  were  criticised  and  rejected.  The 
language  used  by  Rabbi  Abraham  ben  David  in  his  notes  (hasagot)  on  the 
Mishneh  Torah  appears  hars  hand  disrespectful,  if  read  together  with  the 
text  of  the  criticised  passage,  but  it  seems  tame  and  mild  if  compared  with 
expressions  used  now  and  then  by  Maimonides  about  men  who  happened  to 
hold  opinions  differing  from  his  own. 

Maimonides  received  many  complimentary  letters,  congratulating  him 
upon  his  success  ;  but  likewise  letters  with  criticisms  and  questions  respecting 
individual  halakot.  In  most  cases  he  had  no  difficulty  in  defending  his 
position.  From  the  replies  it  must,  however,  be  inferred  that  Maimonides 
made  some  corrections  and  additions,  which  were  subsequently  embodied  in 
his  work.  The  letters  addressed  to  him  on  the  Mishneh  Torah  and  on  other 
subjects  were  so  numerous  that  he  frequently  complained  of  the  time  he  had 
to  spend  in  their  perusal,  and  of  the  annoyance  they  caused  him  ;  but  "  he 
bore  all  this  patiently,  as  he  had  learned  in  his  youth  to  bear  the  yoke." 
He  was  not  surprised  that  many  misunderstood  his  words,  for  even  the  sirpple 
words  of  the  Pentateuch,  "  the  Lord  is  one,"  had  met  with  the  same  fate. 
Some  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  treated  fully  of  'Olam  ha-ba,  "  the  future 
state  of  the  soul,"  and  neglected  to  expatiate  on  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
that  he  altogether  rejected  that  principle  of  faith.  They  therefore  asked 
Rabbi  Samuel  ha-levi  of  Bagdad  to  state  his  opinion  ;  the  Rabbi  accordingly 
discussed  the  subject ;  but,  according  to  Maimonides,  he  attempted  to  solve 
the  problem  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  manner.  The  latter  thereupon  likewise 
wrote  a  treatise  "  On  the  Resurrection  of  the  Dead,"  in  which  he  protested 
his  adherence  to  this  article  of  faith.  He  repeated  the  opinion  he  had  stated 
in  the  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah  and  in  the  Mishneh  Torah,  but  "  in 
more  words ;  the  same  idea  being  reiterated  in  various  forms,  as  the  treatise 
was  only  intended  for  women  and  for  the  common  multitude." 

These  theological  studies  engrossed  his  attention  to  a  great  extent,  but  it 
did  not  occupy  him  exclusively.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  R.  Jonathan,  of 
Luncl,  he  says:  "Although  from  my  birth  the  Torah  was  betrothed  to  me,  and 
continues  to  be  loved  by  me  as  the  wife  of  my  youth,  in  whose  love  I  find  a 
constant  delight,  strange  women  whom  I  at  first  took  into  my  house  as  her 
handmaids  have  become  her  rivals  and  absorb  a  portion  of  my  time."  He 
devoted  himself  especially  to  the  study  of  medicine,  in  which  he  distinguished 
himself  to  such  a  degree,  according  to  Alkifti,  that  "  the  King  of  the  Franks 
in  Ascalon  wanted  to  appoint  him  as  his  physician."  Maimonides  declined 
the  honour.  Alfadhel,  the  Vizier  of  Saladin  king  of  Egypt,  admired  the 
genius  of  Maimonides,  and  bestowed  upon  him  many  distinctions.     The 


xxiv  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

name  of  Maimonides  was  entered  on  the  roll  of  physicians,  he  received  a  pen- 
sion, and  was  introduced  to  the  court  of  Saladin.  The  method  adopted  in 
his  professional  practice  he  describes  in  a  letter  to  his  pupil,  Ibn  Aknin,  as 
follows  :  "  You  know  how  difficult  this  profession  is  for  a  conscientious  and 
exact  person  who  only  states  what  he  can  support  by  argument  or  authority." 
This  method  is  more  fully  described  in  a  treatise  on  hygiene,  composed  for 
Alfadhel,  son  of  Saladin,  who  was  suffering  from  a  severe  illness  and  had 
applied  to  Maimonides  for  advice.  In  a  letter  to  Rabbi  Samuel  Ibn  Tibbon 
he  alludes  to  the  amount  of  time  spent  in  his  medical  practice,  and  says  : 
"  I  reside  in  Egypt  (or  Fostat)  ;  the  king  resides  in  Cairo,  which  lies  about 
two  Sabbath-day  journeys  from  the  first-named  place.  My  duties  to  the 
king  are  very  heavy.  I  am  obliged  to  visit  him  every  day,  early  in  the  morn- 
ing ;  and  when  he  or  any  of  his  children  or  the  inmates  of  his  harem  are 
indisposed,  I  dare  not  quit  Cairo,  but  must  stay  during  the  greater  part  of 
the  day  in  the  palace.  It  also  frequently  happens  that  one  or  two  of  the 
royal  officers  fall  sick,  and  then  I  have  to  attend  them.  As  a  rule,  I  go  to 
Cairo  very  early  in  the  day,  and  even  if  nothing  unusual  happens  I  do  not 
return  before  the  afternoon,  when  I  am  almost  dying  with  hunger  ;  but  I 
find  the  antechambers  filled  with  Jews  and  Gentiles,  with  nobles  and  common 
people,  awaiting  my  return,"  etc. 

Notwithstanding  these  heavy  professional  duties  of  court  physician,  Mai- 
monides continued  his  theological  studies.  After  having  compiled  a  religious 
guide — Mishneh  Torah — based  on  Revelation  and  Tradition,  he  found  it 
necessary  to  prove  that  the  principles  there  set  forth  were  confirmed  by 
philosophy.  This  task  he  accomplished  in  his  Dalaldt  al-ha'inn,  "  The  Guide 
for  the  Perplexed,"  of  which  an  analysis  will  be  given  below.  It  was  composed 
in  Arabic,  and  written  in  Hebrew  characters.  Subsequently  it  was  trans- 
lated into  Hebrew  by  Rabbi  Samuel  Ibn  Tibbon,  in  the  lifetime  of  Maimon- 
ides, who  was  consulted  by  the  translator  on  all  difficult  passages.  The 
congregation  in  Luncl,  ignorant  of  Ibn  Tibbon's  undertaking,  or  desirous  to 
possess  the  most  correct  translation  of  the  Guide,  addressed  a  very  flattering 
letter  to  Maimonides,  requesting  him  to  translate  the  work  into  Hebrew. 
Maimonides  replied  that  he  could  not  do  so,  as  he  had  not  sufficient  leisure 
for  even  more  pressing  work,  and  that  a  translation  was  being  prepared  by 
the  ablest  and  fittest  man.  Rabbi  Samuel  Ibn  Tibbon.  A  second  translation 
was  made  later  on  by  Jehudah  Alharizi.  The  Guide  delighted  many,  but 
it  also  met  with  much  adverse  criticism  on  account  of  the  peculiar  views  held 
by  Maimonides  concerning  angels,  prophecy,  and  miracles,  especially  on 
account  of  his  assertion  that  if  the  Aristotelian  proof  for  the  Eternity  of  the 
Universe  had  satisfied  him,  he  would  have  found  no  difficulty  in  reconciling 
the  Biblical  account  of  the  Creation  with  that  doctrine.  The  controversy 
on  the  Guide  continued  long  after  the  death  of  Maimonides  to  divide  the 
community,  and  it  is  difficult  to  say  how  far  the  author's  hope  to  effect  a 
reconciliation  between  reason  and  revelation  was  realized.  His  disciple, 
Joseph  Ibn  Aknin,  to  whom  the  work  was  dedicated,  and  who  was  expected 
to  derive  from  it  the  greatest  benefit,  appears  to  have  been  disappointed. 
His  inability  to  reconcile  the  two  antagonistsic  elements  of  faith  and  science, 
he  describes  allegorically  in  the  form  of  a  letter  addressed  to  Maimonides,  in 
which  the  following  passage  occurs  :   "  Speak,  for  I  desire  that  you  be  justi- 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxv 

fied ;  if  you  can,  answer  me.  Some  time  ago  your  beloved  daughter,  the 
beautiful  and  charming  Kimah,  obtained  grace  and  favour  in  my  sight,  and 
I  betrothed  her  unto  me  in  faithfulness,  and  married  her  in  accordance  with 
the  Law,  in  the  presence  of  two  trustworthy  witnesses,  viz.,  our  master, 
Abd-allah  and  Ibn  Roshd.  But  she  soon  became  faithless  to  me  ;  she  could 
not  have  found  fault  with  me,  yet  she  left  me  and  departed  from  my  tent. 
She  does  no  longer  let  me  behold  her  pleasant  countenance  or  hear  her  melo- 
dious voice.  You  have  not  rebuked  or  punished  her,  and  perhaps  you  are 
the  cause  of  this  misconduct.  Now,  '  send  the  wife  back  to  the  man,  for  he 
is ' — or  might  become — '  a  prophet ;  he  wiU  pray  for  you  that  you  may  live,' 
and  also  for  her  that  she  may  be  firm  and  steadfast.  If,  however,  you  do  not 
send  her  back,  the  Lord  will  punish  you.  Therefore  seek  peace  and  pursue 
it ;  listen  to  what  our  Sages  said  :  '  Blessed  be  he  who  restores  to  the  owner 
his  lost  property ' ;  for  this  blessing  applies  in  a  higher  degree  to  him  who 
restores  to  a  man  his  virtuous  wife,  the  crown  of  her  husband."  Maimonides 
replied  in  the  same  strain,  and  reproached  his  "  son-in-law  "  that  he  falsely 
accused  his  wife  of  faithlessness  after  he  had  neglected  her  ;  but  he  restored 
him  his  wife  with  the  advice  to  be  more  cautious  in  future.  In  another  letter 
Maimonides  exhorts  Ibn  Aknin  to  study  his  works,  addii^g,  "  apply  yourself 
to  the  study  of  the  Law  of  Moses ;  do  not  neglect  it,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
devote  to  it  the  best  and  the  most  of  your  time,  and  if  you  tell  me  that  you 
do  so,  I  am  satisfied  that  you  are  on  the  right  way  to  eternal  bliss." 

Of  the  letters  written  after  the  completion  of  the"  Guide,"  the  one  addressed 
to  the  wise  men  of  Marseilles  (1194)  is  especially  noteworthy.  Maimonides 
was  asked  to  give  his  opinion  on  astrology.  He  regretted  in  his  reply  that 
they  were  not  yet  in  the  possession  of  his  Mishneh  Torah  ;  they  would  have 
found  in  it  the  answer  to  their  question.  According  to  his  opinion,  man 
should  only  believe  what  he  can  grasp  with  his  intellectual  faculties,  or  per- 
ceive by  his  senses,  or  what  he  can  accept  on  trustworthy  authority.  Beyond 
this  nothing  should  be  believed.  Astrological  statements,  not  being  founded 
on  any  of  these  three  sources  of  knowledge,  must  be  rejected.  He  had  himself 
studied  astrology,  and  was  convinced  that  it  was  no  science  at  all.  If  some 
dicta  be  found  in  the  Talmud  which  appear  to  represent  astrology  as  a  true 
source  of  knowledge,  these  may  either  be  referred  to  the  rejected  opinion  of 
a  small  minority,  or  may  have  an  allegorical  meaning,  but  they  are  by  no 
means  forcible  enough  to  set  aside  principles  based  on  logical  proof. 

The  debility  of  which  Maimonides  so  frequently  complained  in  his  cor- 
respondence, gradually  increased,  and  he  died,  in  his  seventieth  year,  on  the 
20th  Tebeth,  4965  (1204).  His  death  was  the  cause  of  great  mourning  to 
all  Jews.  In  Fostat  a  mourning  of  three  days  was  kept ;  in  Jerusalem  a  fast 
was  appointed  ;  a  portion  of  the  tochahah  (Lev.  xxvi.  or  Deut.  xxix.)  was 
read,  and  also  the  history  of  the  capture  of  the  Ark  by  the  Philistines  (i  Sam. 
iv.).  His  remains  were  brought  to  Tiberias.  The  general  regard  in  which 
Maimonides  was  held,  both  by  his  contemporaries  and  by  succeeding  gener- 
ations, has  been  expressed  in  the  popular  saying  :  "  From  Moses  to  Moses 
there  was  none  like  Moses." 


THE    MOREH    NEBUCHIM    LITERATURE 


I.  The  Arabic  Text. — The  editio  frinceps,  the  only  edition  of  the  original 
text  of  the  Guide  (in  Arabic,  DHil,  or  Dalalat  al-ha'irin),  was  undertaken 
and  executed  by  the  late  S.  Munk.  Its  title  is  :  Le  Guide  des  Egares,  traite 
de  Theologie  et  de  Philosophie  far  Mo'ise  ben  Maimon,  publie  four  la  fremihe 
fois  dans  Voriginal  Arabe,  et  accomfagne  d'une  traduction  Franfaise  et  de  notes 
critiques,  litter  aires  et  exflicatives,  far  S.  Munk  (Paris,  1 850-1 866).  The 
plan  was  published,  1833,  in  Reflexions  sur  le  culte  des  anciens  Hebreux  (La 
Bible,  par  S.  Cahen,  vol.  iv.),  with  a  specimen  of  two  chapters  of  the  Third 
Part.  The  text  adopted  has  been  selected  from  the  several  MSS.  at  his 
disposal  with  great  care  and  judgment.  Two  Leyden  MSS.  (cod.  18  and 
221),  various  MSS.  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  (No.  760,  very  old  ;  761 
and  758,  written  by  R.  Saadia  Ibn  Danan),  and  some  MSS.  of  the  Bodleian 
Library  were  consulted.  In  the  notes  which  accompany  the  French  trans- 
lation, the  various  readings  of  the  different  MSS.  are  fully  discussed.  At 
the  end  of  the  third  volume  a  list  is  added  of  "  Variantes  des  Manuscrits 
Arabes  et  des  deux  Versions  Hebraiqucs." 

The  library  of  the  British  Museum  possesses  two  copies  of  the  Arabic  text ; 
the  one  Or.  1423  is  complete,  beautifully  written,  with  explanatory  notes  in 
the  margin  and  between  the  lines.  The  name  of  the  copyist  is  not  men- 
tioned, nor  the  date  when  it  has  been  written.  The  volume  has  in  the 
beginning  an  incomplete  index  to  the  Scriptural  passages  referred  to  in  the 
Guide,  and  at  the  end  fragments  of  Psalm  cxli.  in  Arabic  and  of  astrono- 
mical tables. 

The  second  copy  of  the  Dalalat  al-ha'irin  is  contained  in  the  MS.  Or. 
2423,  written  in  large  Yemen  Rabbinic  characters.  It  is  very  fragmentary. 
The  first  fragment  begins  with  the  last  paragraph  of  the  introduction  ;  there 
are  a  few  marginal  notes  in  Hebrew. 

In  the  Bodleian  Library  there  are  the  following  copies  of  the  Dalalat  al- 
ha'irin  according  to  the  Catal.  of  Hebr.  MSS.  by  Dr.  A.  Neubauer  : — 

No.  1236.  The  text  is  preceded  by  Jehudah  al-Charizi's  index  of  the  contents  of  the 
chapters,  and  by  an  index  of  Biblical  quotations.  In  the  margin  there  are  notes, 
containing  omissions,  by  different  hands,  two  in  Arabic  characters.  The  volume  was 
written  1473. 

No.  1237.  The  Arabic  text,  with  a  few  marginal  notes  containing  various  readings; 
the  text  is  preceded  by  three  Hebrew  poems,  beginning,  De'i  holek,  Bi-sedeb  tebunot -^ 
and  Binu   he-dat  Mosheh.      Fol.  212  contains  a  fr.igincnt  of  the  book  (III.,  xxix.). 

No.  1238.   Text  with  a  few  marginal  notes. 


xxviii  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

No.  1239.  The  end  of  the  work  is  wanting  in  this  copy.  The  second  part  has  fortf- 
ninc  chapters,  as  the  introduction  to  Part  II.  is  counted  as  chapter  i. ;  Part  III.  has  fifty- 
six  chapters,  the  introduction  being  counted  as  chapter  i.,  and  chapter  xxiv.  being  divided 
into  two  chapters.  The  index  of  passages  from  the  Pentateuch  follows  the  ordinary  mode 
of  counting  the  chapters  of  the  Guide. 

No.  1240.  Arabic  text  transcribed  in  Arabic  characters  by  Saadiah  b.  Levi  Azankot  for 
Prof.  Golius  in  1645. 

No.  1 241.  First  part  of  the  Dalalat  al-Aa{rin,  v/rktea  by  Saadiah  b.  Mordccai  b.  Mosheh 
in  the  year  143 1. 

No.  1242  contains  the  same  Part,  but  incomplete. 

Nos.  1243,  1244,  124s,  and  1246  contain  Part  II,  of  the  Arabic  text,  incomplete  in 
Nos.  1245  and  1246. 

Nos.  1247,  1248,  and  1249  have  Part  III.;  it  is  incomplete  in  Nos.  1248  and  1249. 
No.  1249  was  written  1291,  and  begins  with  III.,  viii. 

A  fragment  of  the  Arabic  text,  the  end  of  Part  III.,  is  contained  in  No.  407,  2. 

No.  2508  includes  a  fragment  of  the  original  (I.  ii.-xxxii.),  with  a  Hebrew  interlineary 
translation  of  some  words  and  a  few  marginal  notes.  It  is  written  in  Yemen  square 
characters,  and  is  marked  as  "  holy  property  of  the  Synagogue  of  Alsiani." 

A  fragment  (I.  i.)  of  a  different  recension  from  the  printed  is  contained  in  2422,  16. 
On  the  margin  the  Commentaries  of  Shem-tob  and  Ephodi  are  added  in  Arabic. 

A  copy  of  the  Dalalat  is  also  contained  in  the  Berlin  Royal  Library  MS.  Or.  Qu.,  579 
(105  Cat.  Steinschneider)  ;  it  is  defective  in  the  beginning  and  at  the  end. 

The  Cairo  Genizah  at  Cambridge  contains  two  fragments  :  {a)  I.  Ixiv.  and  beginning  of 
Ixv  ;  [b]  II.  end  of  xxzii.  and  xxxiii.  According  to  Dr.  H.  Hirschfeld,  yeiviih  Quarterly 
Re-viciv  (vol.  XV.  p.  677,  they  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Maimonides. 

The  valuable  collection  of  MSS.  in  the  possession  of  Dr.  M.  Caster  includes  a  fragment 
of  the  Dalalat-al-bairin  (Codex  605).  II.  xiii-xv.,  beginning  and  end  defective. 

II.  Translations,  a.  Hebrew. — As  soon  as  European  Jews  heard  of  the 
existence  of  this  work,  they  procured  its  translation  into  Hebrew.  Two 
scholars,  independently  of  each  other,  undertook  the  task  :  Samuel  Ibn 
Tibbon  and  Jehudah  al-Harizi.  There  is,  besides,  in  the  Moreh  ha-7^oreh  of 
Shcmtob  Palquera  an  original  translation  of  some  portions  of  the  Moreh. 
In  the  Sifte  yeshenim  (No.  112)  a  rhymed  translation  of  the  Dalalat  by  Rabbi 
Mattityahu  Kartin  is  mentioned.  Ibn  Tibbon's  version  is  very  accurate ; 
he  sacrificed  elegance  of  style  to  the  desire  of  conscientiously  reproducing  the 
author's  work,  and  did  not  even  neglect  a  particle,  however  unimportant  it 
may  appear.  Ibn  Tibbon  went  in  his  anxiety  to  retain  peculiarities  of  the 
original  so  far  as  to  imitate  its  ambiguities,  e.g.,  meziut  (I.  Iviii.)  is  treated  as 
a  masculine  noun,  only  in  order  to  leave  it  doubtful  whether  a  pronoun  which 
follows  agrees  with  meziut,  "  existence,"  or  with  nimza,  "  existing  being," 
both  occurring  in  the  same  sentence  (Br.  Mus.  MS.  Harl.  7586,  marg.  note 
by  Ibn  Tibbon).  When  he  met  with  passages  that  offered  any  difficulty  he 
consulted  Maimonides.  Harizi,  on  the  other  hand,  was  less  conscientious 
about  words  and  particles,  but  wrote  in  a  superior  style.  Fox  fopuli,  how- 
ever, decided  in  favour  of  the  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon,  the  rival  of  which  be- 
came almost  forgotten.  Also  Abraham,  the  son  of  Moses  Maimonides,  in 
Alilhamoth  ha-shem,  describes  Harizi's  version  as  being  inaccurate.  Most 
of  the  modern  translations  were  made  from  Ibn  Tibbon's  version.  There 
arc,  therefore,  MSS.  of  this  version  almost  in  every  library  containing  collec- 
tions of  Hebrew  books  and  MSS.  It  has  the  title  Moreh-nebuchim.  The 
British  Museum  has  the  following  eight  copies  of  Ibn  Tibbon's  version  : — 

Harl.  7586  A.  This  codex  was  written  in  the  year  1284,  for  Rabbi  Shabbatai  ben 
Rabbi  Maltitynhu.  In  the  year  1340  it  came  into  the  possession  of  Jacob  b.  Shelomoh  ; 
his   ton   Mcnaljcm  sold  it  in  the  year  1378   to   R.    Mattityahu,  son   of    R.  Shabbatai,  for 


GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxix 

fifty  gold  florins.  It  was  again  sold  in  the  year  1461  by  Yehiel  ben  Joab.  There  is  this 
peculiarity  in  the  writing,  that  long  words  at  the  end  of  a  line  are  divided,  and  written 
half  on  the  one  line,  half  on  the  next  5  in  words  which  are  vocalized,  patah  is  frequently 
found  for  ^amez.  There  are  numerous  various  readings  in  the  margin.  The  text  is  pre- 
ceded by  a  poem,  written  by  Joseph  Ibn  Aknin,  pupil  of  Maimonides,  in  praise  of  his 
master,  and  beginning  Adon  yizro.  This  poem  is  attributed  to  R.  Yehudah  ha-Levi 
(Luzzatto,  in  his  Divan,  Betulat-bat-Tehudah,  p.  104).  At  the  end  the  copyist  adds  an 
epigram,  the  translation  of  which  is  as  follows  : — 

"The  Moreh  is  finished — Praise  to  Him  who  formed  and  created  everything — ^written 
for  the  instruction  and  benefit  of  the  few  whom  the  Lord  calleth.  Those  who  oppose  the 
Moreh  ought  to  be  put  to  death  ;  but  those  who  study  and  understand  it  deserve  that 
Divine  Glory  rest  upon  them,  and  inspire  them  with  a  spirit  from  above." 

Harl.  7586  B.  This  codex,  much  damaged  in  the  beginning  and  at  the  end,  contains 
the  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon,  with  marginal  notes,  consisting  of  words  omitted  in  the 
text,  and  other  corrections.  The  version  is  followed  by  the  poems  Karob  meod,  etc.,  and 
De'i  holek,  etc. 

Harl.  5507  contains  the  Hebrew  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon,  with  the  translator's  preface 
and  marginal  notes,  consisting  of  various  readings  and  omissions  from  the  text.  The  work 
of  Maimonides  is  followed  by  Ibn  Tibbon's  Vocabulary  (millot-aarot) ,  Mcsharet-mosheh, 
' Arugot  ha-meaimmah,  Millot  biggayon,  Ruah-hen,  Alfarabi's  Hathalot,  a  Hebrew-Italian 
vocabulary  of  logical  terms,  and  an  explanation  of  koteb.  The  passage  in  Part  I.,  chap. 
Ixxi.,  which  refers  to  Christianity,  has  been  erased. 

Harl.  5525  was  the  property  of  Shimshon  Kohen  Modon.  The  MS.  begins  with 
Harizi's  Ka-wanat  ha-perakim  ;  then  follows  the  text,  with  a  few  marginal  notes  of  a  later 
hand,  mostly  adverse  criticisms  and  references  to  'Arama's  ' Akedah  and  the  Biblical  com- 
mentaries of  Abarbanel.  There  is  also  a  note  in  Latin.  The  text  is  followed  by  Ibn 
Tibbon's  Vocabulary  [Millot-aarot)  and  Masoret  ha-pesukim  (Index  to  the  Biblical 
quotations  in  the  Moreh) .  In  a  poem,  beginning  Moreh  a%her  mennu  deraka'u  gabehu, 
the  Moreh  is  compared  to  a  musical  instrument,  which  delights  when  played  by  one  that 
understands  music,  but  is  spoiled  when  touched  by  an  ignorant  person. 

Add.  27068  (Almanzi  coll.).  At  the  end  the  following  remark  is  added  :  I,  Samuel  Ibn 
Tibbon,  finished  the  translation  of  this  work  in  the  month  of  Tebet  4965  (1205).  The 
text  is  preceded  by  the  well-known  epigrams,  De'i  bolek  and  Moreb-nebuchim  sa  she/omi  ; 
the  last  page  contains  the  epigram  Karob  meod.  There  are  some  notes  in  the  margin, 
mostly  referring  to  various  readings. 

Add.  14763.  This  codex,  written  1273  at  Viterbo,  contains  the  preface  of  Hirizi  to 
his  translation  of  the  Moreh  and  his  index  of  contents,  Ibn  Tibbon's  version  with  a  few 
marginal  notes  of  different  hands,  including  some  remarks  of  the  translator,  and  the  con- 
tents of  the  chapters.  The  codex  contains  besides  the  following  treatises  :  Commentary 
of  Maimonides  on  Abot  ;  Comm,  of  Maim,  on  Mishnah  Sanhedrin  x.  i  ;  Letter  of 
Maimonides  on  the  Resurrection  of  the  Dead  5  Vocabulary  of  difficult  words  by  Samuel 
Ibn  Tibbon  ;  Maimonides'  Letter  to  the  wise  men  of  Marseilles  ;  his  Letter  to  Rabbi 
Jonathan  ;  Keter-malkut,  Mesharet-moiheh,  Ruah-hen,  Otot  ha-shamayim,  translated 
from  the  Arabic  by  Samuel  Ibn  Tibbon  ;  Hathalot  ha-nimzaot,  of  Alfarabi ;  Sefer  ba- 
happuah,  Mishle  hamhhtm  ba-talmidim  ;  on  the  seven  zones  of  the  earth  ;  a  fragment  of 
a  chronicle  from  the  exile  of  Babylon  down  to  the  fourth  year  of  the  Emperor  Nicepheros 
of  Constantinople,  and  a  poem,  which  begins  asheryishal,  and  has  the  following  sense : — "  If  one 
asks  the  old  and  experienced  for  advice,  you  may  expect  his  success  in  all  he  undertakes  ; 
but  if  one  consults  the  young,  remember  the  fate  of  Rehoboam,  son  of  Solomon." 

Add.  14764,  In  addition  to  the  Hebrew  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon  (from  end  of  I.  xxvii.) 
with  a  few  marginal  notes  and  index,  the  codex  contains  at  the  end  of  Part  I.  an  Index  of 
references  made  by  the  author  to  explanations  given  in  preceding  or  succeeding  chapters. 
At  the  end  of  the  text  the  statement  is  added,  that  the  translation  was  finished  in  the 
month  of  Tebet  968  (1208).  The  Moreh  is  followed  by  Ruah-hen,  and  Ibn  Tibbon's 
Vocabulary  of  millot-aarot  (incomplete),  and  is  preceded  by  four  poems  in  praise  of  the 
Moreh,  beginning  Sbim'u  nebone  leb,  Moreb  nebucbim  sa  shelomiy  De'i  bolek  and  Nofet 
makkim. 

Bibl.  Reg.  16  A,  xi.  This  codex,  written  in  Prov.  curs,  characters  in  the  year  130S, 
has  in  front  a  fragment  of  III,  i.,  then  follows  the  poem  of  Meshullam,  beginning  Tebgu 
mezimmotai  (Gratz  Lcket-sboshannim,  p.  151),  and  other  poems. 


xxK  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

The  following  MS.  copies  of  Ibn  Tibbon's  version  are  included  in  the 
Oxford  Bodleian  Library  ;  the  numbers  refer  to  Dr.  Neubauer's  catalogue 
of  the  MSS.  :— 

1250.  An  index  of  the  passages  from  the  Bible  referred  to  in  the  work,  and  an  index 
of  the  contents  precede  the  version.     The  marginal  notes  contain  chiefly  omissions. 

1251.  This  codex  was  written  in  1675.  The  marginal  notes  contain  omissions  and 
explanations. 

1252.  The  marginal  notes  contain  the  translator's  remarks  on  I.  Ixxiv.  4,  and  III.  xlvii. 
The  version  is  followed  by  Ibn  Tibbon's  vocabulary,  and  his  additional  remarks  on  the 
reasons  for  the  commandments.  The  MS.  was  bought  by  Samuel  ben  Moses  from  a 
Christian  after  the  pillage  of  Padua,  where  it  had  belonged  to  a  Synagogue  of  foreigners 
{Jo'aaim)  ;  he  gave  it  to  a  Synagogue  of  the  same  character  at  Mantua. 

1253.  The  marginal  notes  include  that  of  the  translator  on  III.  xlvii. 

1254.  I.  Text  with  marginal  notes  containing  omissions. 

1255.  The  marginal  notes  include  those  of  the  translator  on  I.  xlvi.  and  Ixxiv.  5, 

1256.  The  marginal  notes  contain  various  readings,  notes  relating  to  Harizi's  transla- 
tion and  the  Arabic  text  ;  on  fol.  80  there  is  a  note  in  Latin.  There  are  in  this  codex  six 
epigrams  concerning  the  Moreh. 

1257.  Text  incomplete  j  with  marginal  notes. 

Fragments  of  the  Version  are  contained  in  the  following  codices  :  2047,  3,  p.  65  ;  2283, 
8 ;  2309,  2,  and  2336. 

Among  the  MS.  copies  of  the  Moreh  in  the  Bibl.  Nat.  in  Paris,  there  is 
one  that  has  been  the  property  of  R.  Eliah  Mizrahi,  and  another  that  had 
been  in  the  hands  of  Azariah  de  Rossi  (No.  685  and  No.  691)  ;  the  Giinzburg 
Library  (Paris)  possesses  a  copy  (No.  771),  that  was  written  1452  by  Samuel 
son  of  Isaac  for  Rabbi  Moses  de  Leon,  and  Eliah  del  Medigo's  copy  of  the 
Moreh  is  in  the  possession  of  Dr.  Ginsburg  (London)  ;  it  contains  six  poems, 
beginning  Moreh  nebuchim  sa  ;  Emet  moreh  emet ;  Bi-leshon  esh  ;  Mah- 
ba'aru  ;   Kamu  more  shav. 

The  editio  princeps  of  this  version  has  no  statement  as  to  where  and  when 
it  was  printed,  and  is  without  pagination.  According  to  Filrst  (Bibliogr.) 
it  is  printed  before  1480.  The  copy  in  the  British  Museum  has  some  MS. 
notes.  Subsequent  editions  contain  besides  the  Hebrew  text  the  Com- 
mentaries of  Shem-tob  and  Efodi,  and  the  index  of  contents  by  Harizi 
(Venice,  1551,  fol.);  also  the  Comm.  of  Crescas  and  Vocabulary  of  Ibn 
Tibbon  (Sabionetta,  1553,  fol.;  Jessnitz,  1742,  fol.  etc.);  the  Commen- 
taries of  Narboni  and  S.  Maimon  (Berlin,  1791)  ;  the  commentaries  of  Efodi, 
Shem-tob,  Crescas  and  Abarbanel  (Warsaw,  1872,  4to)  ;  German  transla- 
tion and  Hebrew  Commentary  (Biiir)  Part  I.  (Krotoschin,  1839,  8vo)  ; 
German  translation  and  notes,  Part  II.  (Wien.  1864),  Part  III.  (Frankfort- 
a-M.,  1838). 

The  Hebrew  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon  (Part  I.  to  ch.  Ixxii.)  has  been  trans- 
lated into  Mishnaic  Hebrew  by  M.  I-evin  (Zolkiew,  1829,  4to). 

There  is  only  one  MS.  known  of  Harizi's  version,  viz..  No.  682  of  the 
Bibliothcque  Nationale  at  Paris.  It  has  been  edited  by  L.  Schlosberg,  with 
notes.  London,  1851  (Part  I.),  1876  (II.),  and  1879  (III.).  The  notes  on 
Part  I.  were  supplied  by  S.  Schcyer. 

The  first  Latin  translation  of  the  Moreh  has  been  discovered  by  Dr.  J. 
Perles  among  the  Latin  MSS.  of  the  Munic  Library,  Catal.  Cod.  latinorum 
bibl.  regiac  Monacensis,  torn.  I,  pars  iii.  pag.  208  (Kaish.  36  b),  1700  (7936  b). 
This  version  is  almost  identical  with  that  edited  by  Augustinus  Justinianus, 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxxi 

Paris,  i!;20,  and  is  based  on  Harizi's  Hebrew  version  of  the  Morch.  The 
name  of  the  translator  is  not  mentioned.  In  the  Commentary  of  Moses, 
son  of  Solomon,  of  Salerno,  on  the  Moreh,  a  Latin  translation  is  quoted,  and 
the  quotations  agree  with  this  version.  It  is  called  by  this  commentator 
ha  'atakat  ha-nozrit  ("  the  Christian  translation "),  and  its  author, 
ha-via  'atik  ha-nozer  (lit.  "  the  Christian  translator  ").  Dr.  Perles  is,  how- 
ever, of  opinion  that  these  terms  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  a  Christian 
has  made  this  translation,  as  the  word  nozer  may  have  been  used  here  for 
"  Latin."  He  thinks  that  it  is  the  result  of  the  combined  efTorts  of  Jewish 
and  Christian  scholars  connected  with  the  court  of  the  German  Emperor 
Frederic  II.,  especially  as  in  the  thirteenth  century  several  Jewish  scholars 
distinguished  themselves  by  translating  Oriental  works  into  Latin.  See 
Gratz  Monatschrift,  1875,  Jan.-June,  "Die  in  einer  Miinchener  Hand- 
schrift  aufgefundene  erste  lateinische  Uebersetzung,"  etc.,  von  Dr.  J.  Perles. 
The  title  has  been  variously  rendered  into  Latin  :  Director  neutrorum, 
directorium  dubitantium,  director  neutrorum,  nutantium  or  dubitantium  ; 
doctor  perplexorum. 

Gedaliah  ibn  Yahvah,  in  Shalshelet  ha-kabbalah,  mentions  a  Latin  trans- 
lation  of  the  Moreh  by  Jacob  Monteno  ;  but  nothing  is  known  of  it,  unless  it 
be  the  anonymous  translation  of  the  Munich  MS.,  mentioned  above.  Augus- 
tinus  Justinianus  edited  this  version  (Paris,  1520),  with  slight  alterations  and 
a  great  number  of  mistakes.  Joseph  Scaliger's  opinion  of  this  version  is 
expressed  in  a  letter  to  Casaubonus,  as  follows  :  Qui  latine  vertit,  Hebraica, 
non  Arabica,  convertit,  et  quidem  saepe  hallucinatur,  neque  mentem  Authoris 
assequitur.  Magna  seges  mendorum  est  in  Latino.  Praeter  ilia  quae  ab 
inertia  Interpretis  peccata  sunt  accessit  et  inertia  Librariorum  aut  Typo- 
graphorum,  e.g.,  prophetiae  pro  philosophize  ;  altitudo  pro  aptitudo  ;  boni- 
tatem  pro  brevitatem.     (Buxtorf,  Doctor  Perplexorum,  Praef.) 

Johannes  Buxtorfius,  Fil.,  translated  the  Hebrew  version  of  Ibn  Tibbon 
into  Latin  (Basileae,  1629,  4to).  In  the  Praefatio  ad  Lectorem,  the  trans- 
lator discusses  the  life  and  the  works  of  Maimonides,  and  dwells  especially 
on  the  merits  and  the  fate  of  the  Moreh-nebuchim.  The  preface  is  followed 
by  a  Hebrew  poem  of  Rabbi  Raphael  Joseph  of  Treves,  in  praise  of  an 
edition  of  the  Moreh  containing  the  Commentaries  of  Efodi,  Shem-tob, 
and  Crescas. 

Italian  was  the  first  living  language  into  which  the  Moreh  has  been  trans- 
lated. This  translation  was  made  by  Yedidyah  ben  Moses  (Amadeo  de 
Moise  di  Recanati),  and  dedicated  by  him  to  "  divotissimo  e  divinissimo 
Signor  mio  il  Signer  Immanuel  da  Fano  "  (i.e.,  the  Kabbalist  Menahem 
Azarriah).  The  translator  dictated  it  to  his  brother  Eliah,  who  wrote  it  in 
Hebrew  characters ;  it  was  finished  the  8th  of  February,  1583.  The  MS. 
copy  is  contained  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Berlin,  MS.  Or.  Qu.  487  (M. 
Steinschneider  Catal.,  etc.) — The  Moreh  has  been  translated  into  Italian  a 
second  time,  and  annotated  by  D.  J.  Maroni:  Guida  degli  Smarriti,  Firenze, 
1870,  fol. 

The  Moreh  has  been  translated  into  German  by  R.  Fiirstenthal  (Part  I„ 
Krotoschin,  1839),  M.  Stern  (Part  II.,  Wien,  1864),  and  S.  Scheyer  (Part  III.. 
Frankfort-a.-M.,  1838).  The  translation  is  based  on  Ibn  Tibbon's  Hebrew 
version.     The  chapters  on  the  Divine  Attributes  have   been   translated  into 


xxxii  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

German,  and  fully  discussed,  by  Dr.  Kaufmann  in  his  Geschichte  der  Attri- 
hutcnlehre  (Gotha,  1877).  An  excellent  French  translation,  based  on  the 
Arabic  original,  has  been  supplied  by  the  regenerator  of  the  Guide,  S.  Munk. 
It  was  published  together  with  the  Arabic  text  (Paris,  1850-1866). 

The  IVIoreh  has  also  been  translated  into  the  Hungarian  language  by  Dr. 
Klein.     The  translation  is  accompanied  by  notes  (Budapest,  1878-80). 

The  portion  containing  the  reasons  of  the  Commandments  (Part  III. 
ch.  xxvi.-xlix.)  has  been  translated  into  English  by  James  Townley 
(London,  1827).  The  translation  is  preceded  by  an  account  on  the  life 
and  works  of  Maimonides,  and  dissertations  on  various  subjects ;  among 
others,  Talmudical  and  Rabbinical  writings,  the  Originality  of  the  Institu- 
tions of  Moses,  and  Judicial  astrology. 

III.  Commentaries. — It  is  but  natural  that  in  a  philosophical  work  like  the 
Moreh,  the  reader  will  meet  with  passages  that  at  first  thought  seem  unin- 
telligible, and  require  further  explanation,  and  this  want  has  been  supplied 
by  the  numerous  commentators  that  devoted  their  attention  to  the  studv 
of  the  Moreh.  Joseph  Solomon  del  Medigo  (1591)  saw  eighteen  Commen- 
taries. The  four  principal  ones  he  characterizes  thus  (in  imitation 
of  the  Hagadah  for  Passover)  :  Moses  Narboni  is  rasha',  has  no  piety, 
and  reveals  all  the  secrets  of  the  Aloreh.  Shem-lob  is  hakam, 
"  wise,"  expounds  and  criticises ;  Crescas  is  tam,  "  simple,"  explains  the 
book  in  the  style  of  the  Rabbis ;  Epodi  is  she-eno  yode'a  lishol,  "  does  not  under- 
stand to  ask,"  he  simply  explains  in  short  notes  without  criticism  [Miktab- 
ahuz;  ed.  A.  Geiger,  Berlin,  1840,  p.  18).  The  earliest  annotations  were 
made  by  the  author  himself  on  those  passages,  which  the  first  translator  of 
the  Moreh  was  unable  to  comprehend.  They  are  contained  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  Samuel  Ibn  Tibbon,  beginning,  lefi  siklo  yehullal  ish  (Bodl 
Library,  No.  2218,  s.  ;  comp.  The  Guide,  etc.,  I.  21,  343  ;  II.  8,  99).  Ibn 
Tibbon,  the  translator,  likewise  added  a  few  notes,  which  are  found  in  the 
margin  of  MSB.  of  the  Hebrew  version  of  the  Morcli  (on  I.  xlv.  Ixxiv.  ;  II. 
xxiv. ;  and  HI.  xlvii. — MSS.  Bodl.  1252,  i  ;  1253,  1255,  1257;  Brit.  Mus. 
Add.  14,763  and  27,068). 

Both  translators  wrote  explanations  of  the  philosophical  terms  employed 
in  the  versions.  Harizi  wrote  his  vocabulary  first,  and  Ibn  Tibbon,  in  the 
introductory  remarks,  to  Perush  millot  zarot  ("  Explanation  of  difficult 
words  "),  describes  his  rival's  vocabulary  as  full  of  blunders.  Ibn  Tibbon's 
Perush  is  found  almost  in  every  copy  of  his  version,  both  MS.  and  print ; 
so  also  Harizi's  index  of  the  contents  of  the  chapters  of  the  Moreh  {Kavvanat 
ha-pera/cim). 

The  following  is  an  alphabetical  list  of  Commentaries  on  the  Moreh  : — 

Abarhanel  (Don  Isaak)  wrote  a  Commentary  on  I.  i.— Iv. ;  II.  xxxi.— xlv.,  and  a  separate 
book  Shamayim-kadaihim,  "  New  Heavens,"  on  II.  xix.,  in  which  he  fully  discusses  the 
question  concerning  Creatio  ex  nihilo.  The  opinion  of  Maimonides  is  not  always  accepted. 
Thus  twenty-seven  objections  are  raised  against  his  interpretation  of  the  first  chapter  of 
Ezckiel.  These  objections  he  wrote  at  Molin,  in  the  house  of  R.  Abraham  Treves  Zarfati. 
The  Commentary  is  followed  by  a  short  essay  {maamar)  on  the  plan  of  the  Moreh.  The 
method  adopted  by  Abarbanel  in  all  his  Commentaries,  is  also  employed  in  this  essay.  A 
series  of  questions  is  put  forth  on  the  subject,  and  then  the  author  sets  about  to  answer 
them.  M.  J.  Landau  edited  the  Commentary  without  text,  with  a  Preface,  and  with  ex- 
planatory notes,  called  Moreh  li--^eidakah  (Prag.  1831;  MS.  Bodl.  2385).       In  addition  tc 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxxiii 

these  the  same  author  wrote  Tesbubot  "  Answers "  to  several  questions  asked  by  Rabbi 
Shaul  ha-Cohen  on  topics  discussed  in  the  Moreh  (Venice,  I7<;4). 

Abraham  Ahulajia  wrote  "  Sodot  ha-moreh,"  or  Sitrc-t.nih,  a  kabbalistic  Com- 
mentary on  the  Morch.  He  gives  the  expression,  pU  J  J  (I'aiadise),  for  the  number 
(177)  of  the  chapters  of  the  Moreh.  MS.  Nat.  Bibl.  226,  3.  Lcipsic  Libr.  232,  4.  MS. 
Bodl.  2360,  5,  contains  a  portion  of  Part  III. 

Buchner  A.  Ha-moreb  li-zedakab  (Warsaw,  1838).  Commentary  on  "The  Reasons  of 
the  Laws,"  Moreh  III.  xxix.-xiix.  The  Commentaiy  is  preceded  by  an  account  of  the  life 
of  Maimonidcs. 

Comtino,  Mordecai  b.  Eliezer,  wrote  a  short  commentary  on  the  Moreh  (Dr.  Gins- 
burg's  collection  of  MSS.  No.  10).  Narboni,  who  "spread  light  on  dark  passages  in 
the  Guide,"  is  frequently  quoted.  Reference  is  also  made  to  his  own  commentary  on  Ibn 
Ezra's  Tewd-mora. 

Crescas  {Asher  b.  Abraham)^  expresses  in  the  Preface  to  his  Commentary  the  conviction 
that  he  could  not  always  comprehend  the  right  sense  of  the  words  of  Maimonidcs,  for 
"there  is  no  searching  to  his  understanding."  He  nevertheless  thinks  that  his  explana- 
tions will  help  "  the  young"  to  study  the  Moreh  with  profit.  A  long  poem  in  praise  of 
Maimonides  and  his  work  precedes  the  Preface.  His  notes  are  short  and  clear,  and  in 
spite  of  his  great  respect  of  Maimonides,  he  now  and  then  criticises  and  corrects 
him. 

Da-vid  Yahya  is  named  by  Joseph  Del  Medigo  {Mikeab-a/mz  ed.  A.  Geiger,  Berlin, 
1840  ;   p.  18,  and  note  76),  as  having  written  a  Commentary  on  the  Moreh. 

Da-vid  ben  Tehudah  Leon  Rabhino  wrote  'En  ha-iore,  MS.  Bodl.  1263.  He  quotes  in  his 
Commentary  among  others  'Arama's  ' Akedat yizkak.  The  Preface  is  written  by  Immanuel 
ben  Raphael  Ibn  Meir,  after  the  death  of  the  author. 

Efodi  is  the  name  of  the  Commentary  written  by  Isaac  ben  Moses,  who  during  the 
persecution  of  1391  had  passed  as  Christian  under  the  name  of  Profiat  Duran.  He  re- 
turned to  Judaism,  and  wrote  against  Christianity  the  famous  satire  "Al  tehee  ka- 
aboteka "  ("Be  not  like  your  Fathers"),  which  misled  Christians  to  cite  it  as  written 
in  favour  of  Christianity.  It  is  addressed  to  the  apostate  En  Bonet  Bon  Giorno.  The  same 
author  also  wrote  a  grammatical  work,  Md aseh-efod.  The  name  Efod  (TDS),  is  explained 
as  composed  of  the  initials  Amar  Profiat  Duran.  His  Commentary  consists  of  short  notes, 
explanatory  of  the  text.  The  beginning  of  this  Commentary  is  contained  in  an  Arabic 
translation  in  MS.  Bodl.  2422,  16. 

Epbraim  Al-Naqa-vab  in  Sba'ar  Kebod  ha-shem  (MS.  Bodl.  939,  2  and  1258,  2), 
answers  some  questions  addressed  to  him  concerning  the  Moreh.  He  quotes  Hisdai's 
Or  adonai. 

Funtentbal,  /?.,  translator  and  commentator  of  the  Mahzor,  added  a  Biur,  short  ex- 
planatory notes,  to  his  German  translation  of  Part  I.  of  the  Moreh  (Krotoschin,  1839). 

Gersbon,  Moreh-derek,  Commentary  on  Part  I.  of  the  Moreh  (MS.  Bodl.  1265). 

Hillel  b.  Samuel  b.  Elazar  of  Verona  explained  the  Introduction  to  Part  II.  (the  25 
Propos.).  S.  H.  Halberstam  edited  this  Commentary  together  with  Tagmule  ha-nefesh  of 
the  same  author,  for  the  Society  Mekize-nirdamim  (Lyck,  1S74). 

Joseph  ben  Aba-mart  b.  yoseph,  of  Caspi  (Argcnti^re),  wrote  three  Commentaries  on 
the  Moreh.  The  first  is  contained  in  a  Munich  MS.  (No.  263)  ;  and  seems  to  have  been 
recast  by  the  author,  and  divided  into  two  separate  Commentaries  :  ' Ammude  Kesef,  and 
Maskiyot  Kesef.  The  former  was  to  contain  plain  and  ordinary  explanation,  whilst  pro- 
found and  mysterious  matter  was  reserved  for  the  second  (Steinschn.  Cat.).  In  II.,  chap, 
xlviii.,  Caspi  finds  fault  with  Maimonides  that  he  does  not  place  the  book  of  Job  among 
the  highest  class  of  inspired  writings,  "  its  author  being  undoubtedly  Moses."  These  Com- 
mentaries have  been  edited  by  T.  Werblumer  (Frankfort-a.-M.,  1848).  R.  Kirchheim 
added  a  Hebrew  introduction  discussing  the  character  of  these  commentaries,  and  describ- 
ing the  manuscripts  from  which  these  were  copied  ;  a  Biography  of  the  author  is  added 
in  German. 

Joseph  Giqatilia  wrote  notes  on  the  Moreh,  printed  with  "Questions  of  Shaul  ha-kohen  " 
(Venice,  1574.     MS.  Bodl.  1911,  3). 

Joseph  b.  Isaac  ha-Le-vi's  Gib^at  ha-Moreh  is  a  short  Commentary  on  portions  of  the 
Morcii,  with  notes  by  R.  Yom-tob  Heller,  the  author  of  Tosafot  Tom-iob  (Prag., 
1 6 1  z). 


xxxiv  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Isaac  Satano-v  wrote  a  commentary  on  Parts  II.  and  III.  of  the  Alorch  (sec  Maimon 
Solomon  p.  xxi.). 

Isaac  ben  Shcm-toh  ihn  Sbem-toh  wrote  a  lengthy  Commentary  on  the  Morch, 
Part  I.  (MS.  Brit.  Mus.  Or.  1388).  The  object  ot  the  Commentary  is  to  show  that 
there  is  no  contradiction  between  Maimonides  and  the  Divine  Law.  He  praises  Mai- 
monides  as  a  true  believer  in  Creatio  ex  nibilo,  whilst  Ibn  Ezra  and  Gersonides  assumed  a 
prima  materia  (7*oc<rr,  kadosb).  Nachmanides  is  called  ba-kasid  ha-gadol,  but  is  neverthe- 
less blamed,  together  with  Narboni  and  Zerahyah  ha-Levi,  for  criticising  Maimonides, 
instead  of  trying  to  explain  startling  utterances  even  in  "a  forced  way"  {bederek 
rabok)  ;  and  Narboni,  "  in  spite  of  his  wisdom,  frequently  misunderstood  the  Moreh." 
At  the  end  of  each  chapter  a  resume  [derusb)  of  the  contents  of  the  chapter  is  given, 
and  the  lesson  to  be  derived  from  it.  The  MS.  is  incomplete,  chaps,  xlvi.— xlviii.  are 
missing. 

Kauffmann,  D.,  in  his  Gescbicbte  der  AtrihutenlehrCy  translated  Part  I.  chap.  1.— Ixiii.  into 
German,  and  added  critical  and  explanatory  notes. 

Kalonymos  wrote  a  kind  of  introduction  to  the  Moreh  {Mesbaret  Mosbeh),  in  which  he 
especially  discusses  the  theory  of  Maimonides  on  Providence. 

Leibnitz  made  extracts  from  Buxtorf  s  Latin  version  of  the  Moreh,  and  added  his  own 
remarks.  Obser-vationes  ad  R.  Mosen  Maimoniden  (Foucher  de  Careil,  C.A.,  La  Philosophic 
yui-ve,  1 861). 

Levin,  M.,  wrote  Allon-moreh  as  a  kind  of  introduction  to  his  retranslation  of  Tibbon's 
Hebrew  version  into  the  language  of  the  Mishnah. 

Maimon,  Solomon,  is  the  author  of  Gib''at  ha-moreb,  a  lengthy  commentary  on  Book  I. 
(Berlin,  1791).  The  author  is  fond  of  expatiating  on  topics  of  modern  philosophy.  In 
the  introduction  he  gives  a  short  history  of  philosophy.  The  commentary  on  Books  II. 
and  III.  was  written  by  Isaac  Satanov. 

Aleir  ben  "Jonah  ha-mekunneb  Ben-shneor  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  March  in  Fez 
1560  (MS.  Bodl.  1262). 

Menakem  Kara  expounded  the  twenty-five  propositions  enumerated  in  the  Introduction 
to  Part  il.  of  the  Moreh  (MS.  Bodl.  164.9,  '  3)- 

Mordecai  Taffe,  in  his  Or  Tekarot,  or  Pinnat  Tikrat,  one  of  his  ten  Lebushim,  com- 
ments upon  the  theories  contained  in  the  Moreh. 

Moses,  son  of  Abraham  Pro-venfal,  explains  the  passage  in  Part  I.  chap.  Ixxiii.  Prop.  3, 
in  which  Maimonides  refers  to  the  difference  between  commensurable  and  incommensur- 
able lines  (MS.  Bodl.  2033,  8). 

Moses,  son  of  "Jehudah  Nagari,  made  an  index  of  the  subjects  treated  in  the  Moreh,  in- 
dicating in  each  case  the  chapters  in  which  allusion  is  made  to  the  subject.  He  did  so, 
"in  obedience  to  the  advice  of  Maimonides,  to  consider  the  chapters  in  connected  order" 
(Part  I.  p.  20).  It  has  been  printed  together  with  the  questions  of  Shaul  ha-kohen 
(Venice,  1574). 

Moses  son  of  Solomon  of  Salerno,  is  one  of  the  earliest  expounders  of  the  Morch.  He 
wrote  his  commentary  on  Parts  I.  and  II.,  perhaps  together  with  a  Christian  scholar. 
He  quotes  the  opinion  of  "the  Christian  scholar  with  whom  he  worked  together."  Thus 
he  names  Petrus  de  Bernia  and  Nicolo  di  Giovenazzo.  R.  Jacob  Anatoli,  author  of  the 
Maimed  ha-talmidim,  is  quoted  as  offering  an  explanation  for  the  passage  from  Pirke  di-rabbi 
Eliezer,  which  Maimonides  (II.  chap,  xxvi.)  considers  as  strange  and  inexplicable  (Part  I., 
written  1439;  MS.  of  Bet  ba-midrash,  London;  Parts  I. -II., MS.  Bodl.  i  261,  written, 
1547  ;  MS.  Petersburg,  No.  82  ;  Munich  MS.  60  and  370). 

Moses  ba-katan,  son  of  jfehudah,  son  of  Moses,  wrote  To'aliyot  pirke  ba-maamar  ("  Les- 
sons taught  in  the  chapters  of  this  work").  It  is  an  index  to  the  Moreh  (MS.  Bodl. 
1267). 

Moses  Leiden  explained  the  25  Prop,  of  the  Introduction  to  Part  II.  (MS.  GUnzburg, 
Paris). 

Moses  Narboni  wrote  a  short  commentary  at  Soria,  1362.  He  freely  criticizes  Mai- 
monides, and  uses  expressions  like  the  following  : — "  He  went  too  far,  may  God  pardon 
him"  (II.  viii.).  Is.  Euchcl  ed.  Part  I.  (Berlin,  1791);  J.  Goldenthal,  I.  to  III.  (Wicn, 
1852).  The  Bodl.  Libr.  possesses  several  MS.  copies  of  this  commentary  (Nos.  1260, 
1264,  2,  and  1266). 

Munk,  S.,  added  to  his  French  translation  of  the  Moreh  numerous  critical  and  explana- 
tory notes. 

S.  Sacbt  (Ha-tchiyah,  Berlin,  1850,  p.  8)    explains  various  passages  of  the  Moreh,  with 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxxv 

a  view  of  discovering  the  names  of  those  who  are  ittacked  by  Maimonides  without  being 
named. 

Scheyer,  S.,  added  critical  and  explanatory  notes  to  his  German  translation  of  the  Moreh, 
Part  3,  and  to  the  Hebrew  version  of  Ilarizi,  Part  I.  He  also  wrote  Das  Psychologische 
System  des  Maimonides,  an  Introduction  to  the  Moreh  (Frankf.-a-M.,   1845). 

Shem  tob  Ihn  Palquera^s  Moreh  ha-moreh  consists  of  3  parts  :  (1)  a  philosophical  ex- 
planation of  the  Moreh,  (2)  a  description  of  the  contents  of  the  chapters  of  the  Moreh, 
Part  I,  i.-lvii.  (Presburg,  1827)  ;  (3)  Corrections  of  Ibn  Tibbon's  version.  He  wrote  the 
book  for  himself,  that  in  old  age  he  might  have  a  means  of  refreshing  his  memory.  The 
study  of  science  and  philosophy  is  to  be  recommended,  but  only  to  those  who  have  had  a 
good  training  in  "the  fear  of  sin."  Ibn  Roshd  (Averroes)  is  frequently  quoted,  and  re- 
ferred to  as  he-kakam  ha-ni'zkar  (the  philosopher  mentioned  above). 

Shem-tob  ben  Joseph  ben  Shem-tob  had  the  commentary  of  Efodi  before  him,  which 
he  seems  to  have  quoted  frequently  'verbatim  without  naming  him.  In  the  preface  he 
dwells  on  the  merits  of  the  Moreh  as  the  just  mediator  between  religion  and  philosophy. 
The  commentary  of  Shem-tobh  is  profuse,  and  includes  almost  a  paraphrase  of  the  text. 
He  apologises  In  conclusion  for  having  written  many  superfluous  notes  and  added  ex- 
planation where  no  explanation  was  required  ;  his  excuse  is  that  he  did  not  only  intend 
to  write  a  commentary  (hiur)  but  also  a  work  complete  in  itself  (hibbur).  He  often 
calls  the  reader's  attention  to  things  which  are  plain  and  clear. 

Shem-tob  Ibn  Shem-toh,  in  Sefer  ha-emunot  (Ferrara,  1556),  criticises  some  of  the 
various  theories  discussed  in  the  Moreh,  and  rejects  them  as  heretic.  His  objections  were 
examined  by  Moses  Al-ashkar,  and  answered  in  Hasagot  'al  mah  she-katab  Rabbi  Shem-tob 
neged  ha-Rambam  (Ferrara,  1556). 

Solomon  b.  Jehudah  ha-nasi  wrote  in  Germany  Sitre-torah,  a  kabbalistic  commentary 
on  the  Moreh,  and  dedicated  it  to  his  pupil  Jacob  b.  Samuel  (MS.  Bet-ha-midrash, 
London). 

Tabri-zi.  The  twenty-five  Propositions  forming  the  introduction  to  Part  2,  have  been 
fully  explained  by  Moliammed  Abu-becrben  Mohammed  al-tabrizi.  His  Arabicexplanations 
have  been  translated  by  Isaac  b.  Nathan  of  Majorca  into  Hebrew  (Ferrara,  1556).  At 
the  end  the  following  eulogy  is  added  : — The  author  of  these  Propositions  is  the  chief 
whose  sceptre  is  "wisdom"  and  whose  throne  is  "  understanding,"  the  Israelite  prince, 
that  has  benefited  his  nation  and  all  those  who  love  God,  etc.  :  Moses  b.  Maimon  b. 
Ebed-elohim,  the   Israelite.   .  .  .   May  God  lead  us  to  the  truth.     Amen  ! 

Tishbi.  In  MS.  Bodl.  2279,  i,  there  are  some  marginal  notes  on  Part  III.  which  arc 
signed  Tishbi  (Neub.  Cat.). 

Yahya  Ibn  Suleiman  wrote  in  Arabic  a  Commentary  on  the  Guide  oj  the  Perplexed. 
A  fragment  is  contained  in  the  Berlin  MS.  Or.  Qu.,  554,  2  (Steinschneider,  Cat.  No.  92). 

Zerahyah  b.  Isaac  ha-Le'vi.  Commentary  on  the  Moreh,  I.,  i.— Ixxi.,  and  some  other 
portions  of  the  work.      (See  Maskir,  1861,  p.  125). 

MS.  Bodl.  2360,  8,  contains  a  letter  of  Jehudah  b.  Shelomoh  on  some  passages  of  the 
Moreh,  and  Zerahyah's  reply. 

Anonymous  Commentaries. — The  MS.  Brit.  Mus.  1423  contains  marginal 
and  interlineary  notes  in  Arabic.  No  author  or  date  is  given,  nor  is  any 
other  commentary  referred  to  in  the  notes.  The  explanations  given  are 
mostly  preceded  by  a  question,  and  introduced  by  the  phrase,  "  the  answer 
is,"  in  the  same  style  as  is  employed  in  the  Hebrew-Arabic  Midrash,  MS. 
Brit.  Mus.  Or.  2213.  The  Midrashic  character  is  prominent  in  the  notes. 
Thus  the  verse  "  Open,  ye  gates,  that  the  righteous  nation  which  keepeth 
the  truth  may  enter  in,"  is  explained  as  meaning  :  Open,  ye  gates  of  wisdom, 
that  human  understanding  that  perceiveth  truth  may  enter.  The  notes  are 
numerous,  especially  in  the  first  part,  explaining  almost  every  word  ;  e.g., 
on  "  Rabbi  "  :  Why  does  Maimonides  employ  this  title  before  the  name  of 
his  pupil  ?  The  answer  is :  either  the  word  is  not  to  be  taken  literally 
("  master  "),  but  as  a  mere  compliment,  or  it  has  been  added  by  later  copy- 
ists. Of  a  similar  style  seem  to  be  the  Arabic  notes  in  the  Berlin  MS.  Or. 
Oct.  258,  2,  8,  10.     (Cat.  Steinschneider,  No.  108.) — Anonymous  mareinal 


xxxvi  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

notes  are  met  with  almost  in  every  MS.  of  the  Moreh  ;  e.g.,  Brit.  Mus.  Harl. 
5525;  Add.  14,763,  14,764;  Bodl.  1264,  I;  2282,  10;  2423,  3;  Munich 
MS.,  239,  6. 

The  explanation  of  passages  from  the  Pentateuch  contained  in  the  Moreh 
have  been  collected  by  D.  Ottensosser,  and  given  as  an  appendix  (Moreh- 
derek)  to  Derek-selulah  (Pent,  with  Comm.  etc.,  Furth,  1824). 

IV.  Controversies. — The  seemingly  new  ideas  put  forth  by  Maimonides 
in  the  Moreh  and  in  the  first  section  of  his  Mishneh-torah  {Sefer  ha-madda') 
soon  produced  a  lively  controversy  as  regards  the  merits  of  Maimonides' 
theories.  It  was  most  perplexing  to  pious  Talmudists  to  learn  how  Mai- 
monides explained  the  anthropomorphisms  employed  in  the  Bible,  tKe 
Midrashim  and  the  Talmud,  what  he  thought  about  the  future  state  of  our 
soul,  and  that  he  considered  the  study  of  philosophy  as  the  highest  degree  of 
Divine  worship,  surpassing  even  the  study  of  the  Law  and  the  practice  of  its 
precepts.  The  objections  and  attacks  of  Daniel  of  Damascus  were  easily 
silenced  by  a  herem  (excommunication)  pronounced  against  him  by  the 
Rosh  ha-golah  Rabbi  David.  Stronger  was  the  opposition  that  had  its  centre 
in  Montpellier.  Rabbi  Solomon  ben  Abraham  noticed  with  regret  in  his 
own  community  the  fruit  of  the  theories  of  Maimonides  in  the  neglect  of  the 
study  of  the  Law  and  of  the  practice  of  the  Divine  precepts.  It  happened  to 
Moses  Maimonides  what  in  modern  times  happened  to  Moses  Mendelssohn. 
Many  so-called  disciples  and  followers  of  the  great  master  misunderstood  or 
misinterpreted  his  teaching  in  support  of  their  dereliction  of  Jewish  law  and 
Jewish  practice,  and  thus  brought  disrepute  on  him  in  the  eyes  of  their  oppo- 
nents. Thus  it  came  that  Rabbi  Solomon  and  his  disciples  turned  their 
wrath  against  the  writings  of  Maimonides  instead  of  combating  the  argu- 
ments of  the  pseudo-Maimonists.  The  latter  even  accused  Solomon  of 
having  denounced  the  Moreh  and  the  Sefer  ha-madda'  to  the  Dominicans, 
who  condemned  these  writings  to  the  flames ;  when  subsequently  copies  of 
the  Talmud  were  burnt,  and  some  of  the  followers  of  the  Rabbi  of  Mont- 
pellier were  subjected  to  cruel  tortures,  the  IVIaimonists  saw  in  this  event 
a  just  punishment  for  offending  Maimonides.  (Letters  of  Hillel  of  Verona, 
Hemdah  Genuzah,   ed.  H.  Edelmann,  p.  18  S(]q.). 

Meir  b.  Todros  ha-levi  Abulafia  wrote  already  during  the  lifetime  of  Mai- 
monides to  the  wise  men  in  Lunel  about  the  heretic  doctrines  he  dis- 
covered in  the  works  of  Maimonides.  Ahron  b.  McshuUam  and  Shes- 
heth  Benvenisti  defended  Maimonides.  About  1232  a  correspondence 
opened  between  the  Maimonists  and  the  Anti-maimonists  (Gratz,  Gesch. 
d.  J.  vii.  note  I).  The  Grammarian  David  Kimhi  wrote  in  defence  of 
Maimonides  three  letters  to  Jehudah  Alfachar,  who  answered  each  of  them  in 
the  sense  of  Rabbi  Solomon  of  Montpellier.  Abraham  b.  Hisdai  and  Samuel 
b.  Abraham  Saportas  on  the  side  of  the  Maimonists,  took  part  in  the  contro- 
versy, Meshullam  b.  Kalonymos  b.  Todros  of  Narbonne  begged  Alfachar 
to  treat  Kimhi  with  more  consideration,  whereupon  Alfachar  resolved  to 
withdraw  from  the  controversy.  Nahmanidcs,  though  more  on  the  side  of 
Rabbi  Solomon,  wrote  two  letters  of  a  conciliatory  character,  advising  moder- 
ation on  both  sides.  Representatives  of  the  congregations  of  Saragossa, 
Huesca,  Monzon,  Kalatajud,  and  Lerida  signed  declarations  against  R. 
Solomon.      A  herem  was  proclaimed   from   Lunel   and   Narbonne  against 


GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  xxxvii 

the  Anti-Maimonists.  The  son  of  Maimonides,  Abraham,  wrote  a  pam- 
phlet Milhamot  adonai,  in  defence  of  the  writings  of  his  father.  The  con- 
troversy raised  about  fifty  years  later  by  Abba  Mari  Don  Astruc  and  R. 
Solomon  bcn-Aderet  of  Barcelona,  concerned  the  Morch  less  directly.  The 
question  was  of  a  more  general  character :  Is  the  study  of  philosophy  dan- 
gerous to  the  religious  belief  of  young  students  ?  The  letters  written  in 
this  controversy  are  contained  in  Minfpat-kenaot  by  Abba  Mari  Don 
Astruc  (Presburg,  1838),  and  Kitab  alrasail  of  Meir  Abulafia  ed.  J.  Brill 
(Paris,  1871).  Yedaya  Bedrasi  took  part  in  this  controversy,  and  wrote 
Ketab  hitnazlut  in  defence  of  the  study  of  philosophy  (Teshubot  Rashba, 
Hanau,  1610,  p,  1 1 1  b.).  The  whole  controversy  ended  in  the  victory  of  the 
Moreh  and  the  other  writings  of  Maimonides.  Stray  remarks  are  found  in 
various  works,  some  in  praise  and  some  in  condemnation  of  Maimonides.  A 
few  instances  may  suffice.  Rabbi  Jacob  Emden  in  his  Mitpahat-sejarim 
(Lemberg,  1870,  p.  56)  believes  that  parts  of  the  Moreh  are  spurious  ;  he 
even  doubts  whether  any  portion  of  it  is  the  work  of  "  Maimonides,  the 
author  of  the  Mishneh-torah,  who  was  not  capable  of  writing  such  heretic 
doctrines."  S.  D.  Luzzato  regards  Maimonides  with  great  reverence,  but 
this  does  not  prevent  him  from  severely  criticising  his  philosophical  theories 
(Letters  to  S.  Rappoport,  No.  79,  83,  266,  Iggeroth  Shedal  ed.  E.  Graber, 
Przemys'l,  1882),  and  from  expressing  his  conviction  that  the  saying  "  From 
Moses  to  Moses  none  rose  like  Moses,"  was  as  untrue  as  that  suggested  by 
Rappoport,  "  From  Abraham  to  Abraham  (Ibn-Ezra)  none  rose  like  Abra- 
ham." Rabbi  Hirsch  Chayyuth  in  Darke-Mosheh  (Zolkiew,  1840)  examines 
the  attacks  made  upon  the  writings  of  Maimonides,  and  tries  to  refute  them, 
and  to  show  that  they  can  be  reconciled  with  the  teaching  of  the  Talmud. 

The  Bodl.  MS.  2240,  3a,  contains  a  document  signed  by  Josselman  and 
other  Rabbis,  declaring  that  they  accept  the  teaching  of  Maimonides  as 
correct,  with  the  exception  of  his  theory  about  angels  and  sacrifices. 

Numerous  poems  were  written,  both  in  admiration  and  in  condemnation 
of  the  Moreh.  Most  of  them  precede  or  follow  the  Moreh  in  the  printed 
editions  and  in  the  various  MS.  copies  of  the  work,  A  few  have  been  edited 
in  Dibre-hakamim,  pp.  75  and  86  ;  in  the  Literaturblatt  d.  Or.  I.  379,  II. 
26-27,  IV.  748,  and  Leket-shoshannim  by  Dr.  Gratz.  In  the  Sammelband 
of  the  Mekize  Nirdamim  (1885)  a  collection  of  69  of  these  poems  is  contained, 
edited  and  explained  by  Prof.  Dr.  A.  Berliner.  In  imitation  of  the  Moreh 
and  with  a  view  of  displacing  Maimonides'  work,  the  Karaite  Ahron  II.  b. 
Eliah  wrote  a  philosophical  treatise,  Ez-hayyim  (Ed.  F.  Delitzsch.  Leipzig, 
1841). 

Of  the  works  that  discuss  the  whole  or  part  of  the  philosophical  system  of 
the  Morch  the  following  are  noteworthy  : — 

Bacher,  W.      Die   Bibilexegese   Moses   MaimGni's,  in    the    Jahresbericht  der   Landes 
Rabbinerschule  zu  Buda-Pest.  1896. 

Eisler,  M.  Vorlesungen  Ubcr  die  judischen  Philosophen  des  Mittelalters.  Abtheil.  II., 
Moses  Maimonides  (Wien,  1870). 

Geiger,  A.  Das  Judenthum  u.  seine  Geschichte  (Breslau,  1865),  Zehnte  Vorlesung  : 
Aben  Ezra  u.  Maimonides. 

Gratz,  H.     Geschichte  d.  Juden,  VI.  p.  363  sqq. 

Joel,  M.     Religionsphilosophie  des  Moses  b.  Maimon  (Breslau,  1859). 

Joel,  M.     Albertus  Magnus  u.  sein  Vorhaltniss  zu  Maimonides  (Breslau,  1863). 


xxxviii  GUIDE  FOR    THE   PERPLEXED 

Kaufmann,  D.      Gcschichte  der  Attributenlehre,  VII.     Gotha,  1874. 

Philippsohn,  L.  Die  Philosophic  des  Maimonides.  Predigt  und  Schul-Magazin,  I. 
xviii.     (Magdeburg,  1S34.) 

Rosin,  D.      Die  Ethik  d.  Maimonides  (Brcslau,  1876). 

Rubin,  S.  Spinoza  u.  Maimonides,  ein  Psychologisch-Philosophisches  Antitheton 
(Wien,  1868). 

Scheyer,  S.      Das  psychologische  System  des  Maimonides.     Frankfort-a.-M.,  1845. 

Weiss,  T.  H.      Beth-Talmud,  I.  x.  p.  289. 

David  Yellin  and  Israel  Abrahams,  Maimonides. 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    GUIDE    FOR 
THE    PERPLEXED 


It  is  the  object  of  this  work  "to  afford  a  guide  for  the  perplexed,"  i.e.  "to 
thinkers  whose  studies  have  brought  them  into  collision  with  religion  "  (p.  9), 
"who  have  studied  philosophy  and  have  acquired  sound  knowledge,  and  who, 
while  firm  in  religious  matters,  are  perplexed  and  bewildered  on  account  of  the 
ambiguous  and  figurative  expressions  employed  in  the  holy  writings  "  (p.  5). 
Joseph,  the  son  of  Jehudah  IbnAknin,  a  disciple  of  Maimonides,  is  addressed  by 
his  teacher  as  an  example  of  this  kind  of  students.  It  was  "  for  him  and  for 
those  like  him "  that  the  treatise  was  composed,  and  to  him  this  work  is 
inscribed  in  the  dedicatory  letter  with  which  the  Introduction  begins.  Mai- 
monides, having  discovered  that  his  disciple  was  sufficiently  advanced  for  an 
exposition  of  the  esoteric  ideas  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets,  commenced  to 
give  him  such  expositions  "by  way  of  hints."  His  disciple  then  begged  him  to 
give  him  further  explanations,  to  treat  of  metaphysical  themes,  and  to  expound 
the  system  and  the  method  of  the  Kalam,  or  Mohammedan  Theology.^  In 
compliance  with  this  request,  Maimonides  composed  the  Guide  of  the  Perplexed. 
The  reader  has,  therefore,  to  expect  that  the  subjects  mentioned  in  the  disciple's 
request  indicate  the  design  and  arrangement  of  the  present  work,  and  that  the 
Guide  consists  of  the  following  parts  : — i.  An  exposition  of  the  esoteric  ideas 
{sodot)  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets.  2.  A  treatment  of  certain  metaphysical 
problems.  3.  An  examination  of  the  system  and  method  of  the  Kalam.  This, 
in  fact,  is  a  correct  account  of  the  contents  of  the  book  ;  but  in  the  second  part 
of  the  Introduction,  in  which  the  theme  of  this  work  is  defined,  the  author 
mentions  only  the  first-named  subject.  He  observes  :  "  My  primary  object  is 
to  explain  certain  terms  occurring  in  the  prophetic  book.  Of  these  some  are 
homonymous,  some  figurative,  and  some  hybrid  terms."  "  This  work  has  also 
a  second  object.  It  is  designed  to  explain  certain  obscure  figures  which  occur 
in  the  Prophets,  and  are  not  distinctly  characterised  as  being  figures"  (p.  2). 
Yet  from  this  observation  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  Maimonides  abandoned 
his  original  purpose  ;  for  he  examines  the  Kalam  in  the  last  chapters  ot  the 
First  Part  (ch.  Ixx.-lxxvi.),  and  treats  of  certain  metaphysical  themes  in  the 
beginning  of  the  Second  Part  (Introd.  and  ch.  i.-xxv.).  But  in  the  passage 
quoted  above  he  confines  himself  to  a  delineation  of  the  main  object  ot  this 
treatise,  and  advisedly  leaves  unmentioned  the  other  two  subjects,  which, 
however  important  they  may  be,  are  here  of  subordinate  interest.  Nor  did  he 
consider  it  necessary,  to  expatiate  on  these  subjects  ;  he  only  wrote  for  the  student, 
for  whom  a  mere  reference  to  works  on  philosophy  and  science  was  sufficient. 
We  therefore  meet  now  and  then  with  such  phrases  as  the  following  :  "  This  is 
fully  discussed  in  works  on  metaphysics."  By  references  ot  this  kind  the  author 
may  have  intended  to  create  a  taste  for  the  study  of  philosophical  works.  But 
our  observation   only  holds   good    with    regard  to  the  Aristotelian  philosophy. 

1   See  infra,  p.ige  4,  note  I. 


k\  guide  for  the  perplexed 

The  writings  of  the  Mutakallcmim  are  never  commended  by  him  ;  he  states 
their  opinions,  and  tells  his  disciple  that  he  would  not  find  any  additional  argu- 
ment, even  if  he  were  to  read  all  their  voluminous  works  (p.  133).  Maimonides 
was  a  zealous  disciple  of  Aristotle,  althoujfh  the  theory  of  the  Kalam  might 
seem  to  have  been  more  congenial  to  Jewish  thought  and  belief.  The  Kalam 
upheld  the  theory-  of  God's  Existence,  Incorporeality,  and  Unity,  together  with 
the  creatio  ex  n'lkilo.  Maimonides  nevertheless  opposed  the  Kalam,  and,  antici- 
pating the  question,  why  preference  should  be  given  to  the  system  of  Aristotle, 
which  included  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  a  theory  contrary  to 
the  fundamental  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  he  exposed  the  weakness  of  the 
Kalam  and  its  fallacies. 

The  exposition  of  Scriptural  texts  is  divided  by  the  author  into  two  parts  ; 
the  first  part  treats  of  homonymous,  figurative,  and  hybrid  terms,^  employed  in 
reference  to  God  ;  the  second  part  relates  to  Biblical  figures  and  allegories. 
These  two  parts  do  not  closely  follow  each  other  ;  they  are  separated  by  the 
examination  of  the  Kalam,  and  the  discussion  of  metaphysical  problems.  It 
seems  that  the  author  adopted  this  arrangement  for  the  following  reason  :  first 
of  all,  he  intended  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  Biblical  anthropomorphisms  do 
not  imply  corporeality,  and  that  the  Divine  Being  of  whom  the  Bible  speaks 
could  therefore  be  regarded  as  identical  with  the  Primal  Cause  of  the  philoso- 
phers. Having  established  this  principle,  he  discusses  from  a  purely  meta- 
physical point  of  view  the  properties  of  the  Primal  Cause  and  its  relation  to  the 
universe.  A  solid  foundation  is  thus  established  for  the  esoteric  exposition  of 
Scriptural  passages.  Before  discussing  metaphysical  problems,  which  he  treats 
in  accordance  with  Aristotelian  philosophy,  he  disposes  of  the  Kalam,  and  de- 
monstrates that  its  arguments  are  illogical  and  illusory. 

The  "  Guide  for  the  Perplexed  "  contains,  therefore,  an  Introduction  and  the 
following  four  parts  : — i.  On  homonymous,  figurative,  and  hybrid  terms.  2. 
On  the  Supreme  Being  and  His  relation  to  the  universe,  according  to  the  Kalam. 
3.  On  the  Primal  Cause  and  its  relation  to  the  universe,  according  to  the  philo- 
sophers. 4.  Esoteric  exposition  of  some  portions  of  the  Bible  {iodot)  :  a, 
Maaseh  bereshith,  or  the  history  of  the  Creation  (Genesis,  ch.  i.-iv.)  ;  b,  on 
Prophecy  ;  c,  Maaseh  mercabhah,  or  the  description  of  the  divine  chariot 
(Ezekiel,  ch.  i.). 

According  to  this  plan,  the  work  ends  with  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Third 
Part.  The  chapters  which  follow  may  be  considered  as  an  appendix  ;  they 
treat  of  the  following  theological  themes  :  the  Existence  of  Evil,  Omniscience 
and  Providence,  Temptations,  Design  in  Nature,  in  the  Law,  and  in  the  Biblical 
Narratives,  and  finally  the  true  Worship  of  God. 

In  the  Introduction  to  the  "Guide,"  Maimonides  (i)  describes  the  object  or 
the  work  and  the  method  he  has  followed  ;  (2)  treats  of  similes  ;  (3)  gives 
"  directions  for  the  study  of  the  work  "  ;  and  (4)  discusses  the  usual  causes  of 
inconsistencies  in  authors. 

I  (pp.  2-3).  Inquiring  into  the  root  of  the  evil  which  the  Guide  was  in- 
tended to  remove,  viz.,  the  conflict  between  science  and  religion,  the  author 
perceived  that  in  most  cases  it  originated  in  a  misinterpretation  of  the  anthropo- 
morphisms in  Holy  Writ.  The  main  difficulty  is  found  in  the  ambiguity  of  the 
words  employed  by  the  prophets  when  speaking  of  the  Divine  Being  ;  the 
question  arises  whether  they  are  applied  to  the  Deity  and  to  other  things  in  one 
and  the  same  sense  or  equivocally  ;  in  the  latter  case  the  author  distinguishes 
between  homonyms  pure  and  simple,  figures,  and  hybrid  terms.  In  order  to 
show  that  the  Biblical  anthropomorphisms  do  not  imply  the  corporeality  of  the 
Deity,  he  seeks  in  each  instance  to  demonstrate  that  the  expression  under  exam- 

*  Sec  infrOf  page  5,  note  4. 


GUIDE   FOR    THE   PERPLEXED  xli 

ination  is  a  perfect  homonym  denoting;  things  which  arc  totally  distinct  from 
each  other,  and  whenever  such  a  demonstration  is  impossible,  he  assumes  that  the 
expression  is  a  hybrid  term,  that  is,  being  employed  in  one  instance  figuratively 
and  in  another  homonymously.  His  explanation  of  "  form  "  (zelem)  may  serve 
as  an  illustration.  According  to  his  opinion,  it  iri'variab/y  denotes  "form"  in 
the  philosophical  acceptation  of  the  term,  viz.,  the  complex  of  the  essential 
properties  of  a  thing.  But  to  obviate  objections  he  proposes  an  alternative  view, 
to  take  z.e/em  as  a  hybrid  term  that  may  be  explained  as  a  class  noun  denoting 
o«/v  things  of  the  same  class,  or  as  a  homonym  employed  for  totally  different 
things,  viz.,  "form"  in  the  philosophical  sense,  and  "form"  in  the  ordinary 
meaning  of  the  word.  Maimonides  seems  to  have  refrained  from  explaining 
anthropomorphisms  as  figurative  expressions,  lest  by  such  interpretation  he  might 
implicitly  admit  the  existence  of  a  certain  relation  and  comparison  between  the 
Creator  and  His  creatures. 

Jewish  philosophers  before  Maimonides  enunciated  and  demonstrated  the 
Unity  and  the  Incorporeality  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  interpreted  Scriptural 
metaphors  on  the  principle  that  "  the  Law  speaks  in  the  language  of  man  "  ; 
but  our  author  adopted  a  new  and  altogether  original  method.  The  Commenta- 
tors, when  treating  of  anthropomorphisms,  generally  contented  themselves  with 
the  statement  that  the  term  under  consideration  must  not  be  taken  in  its  literal 
sense,  or  they  paraphrased  the  passage  in  expressions  which  implied  a  lesser  degree 
of  corporeality.  The  Talmud,  the  Midrashim,  and  the  Targumim  abound  in 
paraphrases  of  this  kind.  Saadiah  in  "  Emunot  've-de'ot,"  Bahya  in  his  "  Hobot 
ha-lebabot"  and  Jehydah  ha-levi  in  the  "  Cusari,"  insist  on  the  necessity  and  the 
appropriateness  of  such  interpretations.  Saadiah  enumerates  ten  terms  which 
primarily  denote  organs  of  the  human  body,  and  are  figuratively  applied  to  God. 
To  establish  this  point  of  view  he  cites  numerous  instances  in  which  the  terms  in 
question  are  used  in  a  figurative  sense  without  being  applied  to  God.  Saadiah 
further  shows  that  the  Divine  attributes  are  either  qualifications  of  such  of  God's 
actions  as  are  perceived  by  man,  or  they  imply  a  negation.  The  correctness  of 
this  method  was  held  to  be  so  obvious  that  some  authors  found  it  necessary  to 
apologize  to  the  reader  for  introducing  such  well-known  topics.  From  R.  Abra- 
ham ben  David's  strictures  on  the  Yad  hahazakah  it  is,  however,  evident  that  in  the 
days  of  Maimonides  persons  were  not  wanting  who  defended  the  literal  interpre- 
tation of  certain  anthropomorphisms.  Maimonides,  therefore,  did  not  content 
himself  with  the  vague  and  general  rule,  "  The  Law  speaks  in  the  language  of 
man,"  but  sought  carefully  to  define  the  meaning  of  each  term  when  applied  to 
God,  and  to  identify  it  with  some  transcendental  and  metaphysical  term.  In 
pursuing  this  course  he  is  sometimes  forced  to  venture  upon  an  interpretation 
which  is  much  too  far-fetched  to  commend  itself  even  to  the  supposed  philo- 
sophical reader.  In  such  instances  he  generally  adds  a  simple  and  plain  ex- 
planation, and  leaves  it  to  the  option  of  the  reader  to  choose  the  one  which 
appears  to  him  preferable.  The  enumeration  of  the  different  meanings  of  a  word 
is  often,  from  a  philological  point  of  view,  incomplete  ;  he  introduces  only  such 
significations  as  serve  his  object.  When  treating  of  an  imperfect  homonym,  the 
several  significations  of  which  are  derived  from  one  primary  signification,  he 
apparently  follows  a  certain  system  which  he  does  not  employ  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  perfect  homonyms.  The  homonymity  of  the  term  is  not  proved  ;  the 
author  confines  himself  to  the  remark,  "  It  is  employed  homonymously,"  even 
when  the  various  meanings  of  a  word  might  easily  be  traced  to  a  common  source. 
2  (pag.  4-8).  In  addition  to  the  explanation  of  homonyms  Maimonides 
undertakes  to  interpret  similes  and  allegories.  At  first  it  had  been  his  intention 
to  write  two  distinct  works — Sefer  ha-nebuah,  "A  Book  on  Prophecy,"  and  Sefer 
ha-ihe-uaah,  "  A  Book  of  Reconciliation."     In  the  former  work  he  had  intended 


xUi  GUIDE   FOR   THE   PERPLEXED 

to  explain  difficult  passages  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  latter  to  expound  such  pas- 
sages in  the  Midrash  and  the  Talmud  as  seemed  to  be  in  conflict  with  common 
sense.  With  respect  to  the  "  Book  of  Reconciliation,"  he  abandoned  his  plan, 
because  he  apprehended  that  neither  the  learned  nor  the  unlearned  would  profit 
by  it  :  the  one  would  find  it  superfluous,  the  other  tedious.  The  subject  of  the 
"  Book  on  Prophecy"  is  treated  in  the  present  work,  and  also  strange  passages 
that  occasionally  occur  in  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrash  are  explained. 

The  treatment  of  the  simile  must  vary  according  as  the  simile  is  compound  or 
simple.  In  the  first  case,  each  part  represents  a  separate  idea  and  demands  a 
separate  interpretation  ;  in  the  other  case,  only  one  idea  is  represented,  and  it  is 
not  necessary  to  assign  to  each  part  a  separate  metaphorical  meaning.  This 
division  the  author  illustrates  by  citing  the  dream  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii.  12  sqg.), 
and  the  description  of  the  adulteress  (Prov.  vii.  6  sqq.).  He  gives  no  rule  by 
which  it  might  be  ascertained  to  which  of  the  two  categories  a  simile  belongs, 
and,  like  other  Commentators,  he  seems  to  treat  as  essential  those  details  of  a 
simile  for  which  he  can  offer  an  adequate  interpretation.  As  a  general  principle, 
he  warns  against  the  confusion  and  the  errors  which  arise  when  an  attempt  is 
made  to  expound  every  single  detail  of  a  simile.  His  own  explanations  are  not 
intended  to  be  exhaustive  5  on  the  contrary,  they  are  to  consist  of  brief  allusions 
to  the  idea  represented  by  the  simile,  of  mere  suggestions,  which  the  reader  is 
expected  to  develop  and  to  complete.  The  author  thus  aspires  to  follow  in  the 
wake  of  the  Creator,  whose  works  can  only  be  understood  after  a  long  and  per- 
severing study.  Yet  it  is  possible  that  he  derived  his  preference  for  a  reserved 
and  mysterious  style  from  the  example  of  ancient  philosophers,  who  discussed 
metaphysical  problems  in  figurative  and  enigmatic  language.  Like  Ibn  Ezra, 
who  frequently  concludes  his  exposition  of  a  Biblical  passage  with  the  phrase, 
"  Here  a  profound  idea  (sod)  is  hidden,"  Maimonides  somewhat  mysteriously  re- 
marks at  the  end  of  different  chapters,  "  Note  this,"  "  Consider  it  well."  In 
such  phrases  some  Commentators  fancied  that  they  found  references  to  meta- 
physical theories  which  the  author  was  not  willing  fully  to  discuss.  Whether 
this  was  the  case  or  not,  in  having  recourse  to  that  method  he  was  not,  as  some 
have  suggested,  actuated  by  fear  of  being  charged  with  heresy.  He  expresses  his 
opinion  on  the  principal  theological  questions  without  reserve,  and  does  not 
dread  the  searching  inquiries  of  opponents  ;  for  he  boldly  announces  that  their 
displeasure  would  not  deter  him  from  teaching  the  truth  and  guiding  those  who 
are  able  and  willing  to  follow  him,  however  few  these  might  be.  When,  how- 
ever, we  examine  the  work  itself,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  discover  to  which  parts  the 
professed  enigmatic  method  was  applied.  His  theories  concerning  the  Deity,  the 
Divine  attributes,  angels,  creatio  ex  nihilo,  prophecy,  and  other  subjects,  are 
treated  as  fully  as  might  be  expected.  It  is  true  that  a  cloud  of  mysterious 
phrases  enshrouds  the  interpretation  of  Ma'aseh  hereshit  (Gen.  i.-iii.)  and 
Ma'aseh  mercabah  (Ez.  i.).  But  the  significant  words  occurring  In  these  por- 
tions are  explained  in  the  First  Part  of  this  work,  and  a  full  exposition  is  found 
in  the  Second  and  Third  Parts.  Nevertheless  the  statement  that  the  exposition 
was  never  Intended  to  be  explicit  occurs  over  and  over  again.  The  treatment  of 
the  first  three  chapters  of  Genesis  concludes  thus  :  "These  remarks,  together 
with  what  we  have  already  observed  on  the  subject,  and  what  we  may  have  to 
add,  must  suffice  both  for  the  object  and  for  the  reatlcr  we  have  in  view  "  (II. 
XXX.).  In  like  manner,  he  declares,  after  the  explanation  of  the  first  chapter  of 
Ezekiel  :  "  I  have  given  you  here  as  many  suggestions  as  may  be  of  service  to  you, 
if  you  will  give  them  a  further  development.  .  .  .  Do  not  expect  to  hear  from 
me  anything  more  on  this  subject,  for  I  liave,  though  with  some  hesitation,  gone 
as  far  In  my  explanation  as  I  possibly  could  go  "  (III.  vii.). 

3  (pag.  8-9).      In  the  next  paragraph,  headed,  "  Directions   for  the   Study  of 


GUIDE   FOR    rilE    PERPLEXED  jcliii 

this  Work,"  he  implores  the  reader  not  to  be  hasty  with  his  criticism,  and  to 
bear  in  mind  that  every  sentence,  indeed  every  word,  had  been  fully  considered 
before  it  was  written  down.  Yet  it  might  easily  happen  that  the  reader  could 
not  reconcile  his  own  view  with  that  of  the  author,  and  in  such  a  case  he  is  asked 
to  ignore  the  disapproved  chapter  or  section  altogether.  Such  disapproval 
Maimonides  attributes  to  a  mere  misconception  on  the  part  of  the  reader,  a  fate 
which  awaits  every  work  composed  in  a  mystical  style.  In  adopting  this  peculiar 
style,  he  intended  to  reduce  to  a  minimum  the  violation  of  the  rule  laid  down  in 
the  Mishnah  (Hagigah  ii.  i),  that  metaphysics  should  not  be  taught  publicly. 
The  violation  of  this  rule  he  justifies  by  citing  the  following  two  Mishnaic 
maxims  :  "  It  is  time  to  do  something  in  honour  of  the  Lord  "  (Berakot  ix.  5), 
and  "Let  all  thy  acts  be  guided  by  pure  intentions"  (Abot  ii.  17).  Maimonides 
increased  the  mysteriousness  of  the  treatise,  by  expressing  his  wish  that  the  reader 
should  abstain  from  expounding  the  work,  lest  he  might  spread  in  the  name  of 
the  author  opinions  which  the  latter  never  held.  But  it  does  not  occur  to  him 
that  the  views  he  enunciates  might  in  themselves  be  erroneous.  He  is  positive 
that  his  own  theory  is  unexceptionally  correct,  that  his  esoteric  interpretations 
of  Scriptural  texts  are  sound,  and  that  those  who  differed  from  him — viz.,  the 
Mutakallemim  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  unphilosophical  Rabbis  on  the  other — 
are  indefensibly  wrong.  In  this  respect  other  Jewish  philosophers — e.g.  Saadiah 
and  Bahya — were  far  less  positive  ;  they  were  conscious  of  their  own  fallibility, 
and  invited  the  reader  to  make  such  corrections  as  might  appear  needful.  Owing 
to  this  strong  self-reliance  of  Maimonides,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  opponents 
would  receive  a  fair  and  impartial  judgment  at  his  hands. 

4  (pag.  9-1 1).  The  same  self-reliance  is  noticeable  in  the  next  and  con- 
cluding paragraph  of  the  Introduction.  Here  he  treats  of  the  contradictions 
which  are  to  be  found  in  literary  works,  and  he  divides  them  with  regard 
to  their  origin  into  seven  classes.  The  first  four  classes  comprise  the  apparent 
contradictions,  which  can  be  traced  back  to  the  employment  of  elliptical  speech  ; 
the  other  three  classes  comprise  the  real  contradictions,  and  are  due  to  careless- 
ness and  oversight,  or  they  are  intended  to  serve  some  special  purpose.  The 
Scriptures,  the  Talmud,  and  the  MIdrash  abound  in  instances  of  apparent  con- 
tradictions ;  later  works  contain  real  contradictions,  which  escaped  the  notice  of 
the  writers.  In  the  present  treatise,  however,  there  occur  only  such  contradic- 
tions as  are  the  result  of  intention  and  design. 


PART  L 


The  homonymous  expressions  which  are  discussed  in  the  First  Part  include — 
(i)  nouns  and  verbs  used  in  reference  to  God,  ch.  i.  to  ch.  xllx.  ;  (2)  attributes 
of  the  Deity,  ch.  1.  to  Ix.  ;  (3)  expressions  commonly  regarded  as  names  of  God, 
ch.  Ixi.  to  Ixx.  In  the  first  section  the  following  groups  can  be  distinguished — 
{a)  expressions  which  denote  form  and  figure,  ch.  i.  to  ch.  vi. ;  (6)  space  or  re- 
lations of  space,  ch.  viii.  to  ch.  xxv.  ;  (c)  parts  of  the  animal  body  and  their 
functions,  ch.  xxviii.  to  ch.  xlix.  Each  of  these  groups  includes  chapters  not 
connected  with  the  main  subject,  but  which  serve  as  a  help  for  the  better  under- 
standing of  previous  or  succeeding  interpretations.  Every  word  selected  for 
discussion  bears  upon  some  Scriptural  text  which,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
the  author,  has  been  misinterpreted.  But  such  phrases  as  "  the  mouth  of  the 
Lord,"  and  "  the  hand  of  the  Lord,"  are  not  introduced,  because  their  figurative 
meaning  is  too  obvious  to  be  misunderstood. 

The  lengthy  digressions  which  are  here  and  there  interposed  appear  like  out- 
bursts of  feeling  and  passion  which  the  author  could  not  repress.  Yet  they  are 
"words  fitly  spoken  in  the  right  place"  ;  for  they  gradually  unfold  the  author's 


xliv  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

theory,  and  acquaint  the  reader  with  those  general  principles  on  which  he  founds 
the  interpretations  in  the  succeeding  chapters.  Moral  reflections  are  of  frequent 
occurrence,  and  demonstrate  the  intimate  connexion  between  a  virtuous  life  and 
the  attainment  of  higher  knowledge,  in  accordance  with  the  maxim  current  long 
before  Maimonides,  and  expressed  in  the  Biblical  words,  "The  fear  of  the  Lord 
is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  "  (Ps.  cxi.  lo).  No  opportunity  is  lost  to  inculcate 
this  lesson,  be  it  in  a  passing  remark  or  in  an  elaborate  essay. 

The  discussion  of  the  term  "  ^elem"  (ch.  i.)  afforded  the  first  occasion  for 
reflections  of  this  kind.  Man,  "the  image  of  God,"  is  defined  as  a  living  and 
rational  being,  as  though  the  moral  faculties  of  man  were  not  an  essential 
element  of  his  existence,  and  his  power  to  discern  between  good  and  evil  were 
the  result  of  the  first  sin.  According  to  Maimonides,  the  moral  faculty  would, 
in  fact,  not  have  been  required,  if  man  had  remained  a  purely  rational  being. 
It  is  only  through  the  senses  that  "  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil"  has  become 
indispensable.  The  narrative  of  Adam's  fall  is,  according  to  Maimonides,  an 
allegory  representing  the  relation  which  exists  between  sensation,  moral  faculty, 
and  intellect.  In  this  early  part  (ch.  ii.),  however,  the  author  does  not  yet 
mention  this  theory  ;  on  the  contrary,  every  allusion  to  it  is  for  the  ipresent 
studiously  avoided,  its  full  exposition  being  reserved  for  the  Second  Part. 

The  treatment  oi ha%ah  "he  beheld  "  (ch.  vi.),  is  followed  by  the  advice  that 
the  student  should  not  approach  metaphysics  otherwise  than  after  a  sound  and 
thorough  preparation,  because  a  rash  attempt  to  solve  abstruse  problems  brings 
nothing  but  injury  upon  the  inexperienced  investigator.  The  author  points  to 
the  "nobles  of  the  children  of  Israel"  (Exod.  xxiv.  ii),  who,  according  to  his 
interpretation,  fell  into  this  error,  and  received  their  deserved  punishment.  He 
gives  additional  force  to  these  exhortations  by  citing  a  dictum  of  Aristotle  to  the 
same  effect.  In  a  like  way  he  refers  to  the  allegorical  use  of  certain  terms  by 
Plato  (ch.  xvii.)  in  support  of  his  interpretation  oi"%ur"  {lit.,  "rock")  as  de- 
noting "  Primal  Cause." 

The  theory  that  nothing  but  a  sound  moral  and  intellectual  training  would 
entitle  a  student  to  engage  in  metaphysical  speculations  is  again  discussed  in  the 
digression  which  precedes  the  third  group  of  homonyms  (xxxi.-xxxvi.).  Man's 
intellectual  faculties,  he  argues,  have  this  in  common  with  his  physical  forces, 
that  their  sphere  of  action  is  limited,  and  they  become  inefficient  whenever  they 
are  overstrained.  This  happens  when  a  student  approaches  metaphysics  without 
due  preparation.  Maimonides  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  non-success  of  meta- 
physical studies  is  attributable  to  the  following  causes  :  the  transcendental 
character  of  this  discipline,  the  imperfect  state  of  the  student's  knowledge,  the 
persistent  efforts  which  have  to  be  made  even  in  the  preliminary  studies,  and 
finally  the  waste  of  energy  and  time  owing  to  the  physical  demands  of  man. 
For  these  reasons  the  majority  of  persons  are  debarred  from  pursuing  the  study 
of  metaphysics.  Nevertheless,  there  are  certain  metaphysical  truths  which  have 
to  be  communicated  to  all  men,  e.g.,  that  God  is  One,  and  that  He  is  incorpo- 
real ;  for  to  assume  that  God  is  corporeal,  or  that  He  has  any  properties,  or  to 
ascribe  to  Him  any  attributes,  is  a  sin  bordering  on  idolatry. 

Another  digression  occurs  as  an  appendix  to  the  second  group  of  homonyms 
(ch.  xxvi.-xxvii.).  Maimonides  found  that  only  a  limited  number  of  terms  are 
applied  to  God  in  a  figurative  sense;  and  again,  that  in  the  "Targum"  of 
Onkelos  some  of  the  figures  are  paraphrased,  while  other  figures  received  a 
literal  rendering.  He  therefore  seeks  to  discover  the  principle  which  was  applied 
both  in  the  Sacred  Text  and  in  the  translation,  and  he  found  it  in  the  Talmudical 
dictum,  "  The  Law  speaketh  the  language  of  man."  For  this  reason  all  figures 
are  eschewed  which,  in  their  literal  sense,  would  appear  to  the  multitude  as  im- 
plying debasement  or  a   blemish.       Onkelos,   who   rigorously   guards    himsell 


GUIDE    FOR    THE   PERPLEXED  xlv 

against  using  any  term  that  mighi  suggest  corporification,  gives  a  literal  rendering 
of  figurative  terms  when  there  is  no  cause  for  entertaining  such  an  apprehension. 
Maimonides  illustrates  this  rule  by  the  mode  in  which  Onkelos  renders  "yarad" 
{"  he  went  down,"),  when  used  in  reference  to  God.  It  is  generally  paraphrased, 
but  in  one  exceptional  instance,  occurring  in  Jacob's  "visions  of  the  night" 
(Gen.  xlvi.  4),  it  is  translated  literally  ;  in  this  instance  the  literal  rendering  does 
not  lead  to  corporification  ;  because  visions  and  dreams  were  generally  regarded 
as  mental  operations,  devoid  of  objective  reality.  Simple  and  clear  as  this  ex- 
planation may  be,  we  do  not  consider  that  it  really  explains  the  method  of 
Onkelos.  On  the  contrary,  the  translator  paraphrased  anthropomorphic  terms, 
even  when  he  found  them  in  passages  relating  to  dreams  or  visions  ;  and  indeed 
it  is  doubtful  whether  Maimonides  could  produce  a  single  instance  in  favour  of 
his  view.  He  was  equally  unsuccessful  in  his  explanation  of  "hazab"  "he  saw" 
(ch.  xlviii.).  He  says  that  when  the  object  of  the  vision  was  derogatory,  it  was  not 
brought  into  direct  relation  with  the  Deity  ;  in  such  instances  the  verb  is  para- 
phrased, while  in  other  instances  the  rendering  is  literal.  Although  Maimonides 
grants  that  the  force  of  this  observation  is  weakened  by  three  exceptions,  he  does 
not  doubt  its  correctness. 

The  next  Section  (ch.  1.  to  ch.  lix.)  "  On  the  Divine  Attributes  "  begins  with 
the  explanation  that  "  faith  "  consists  in  thought,  not  in  mere  utterance  ;  in 
conviction,  not  in  mere  profession.  This  explanation  forms  the  basis  for  the 
subsequent  discussion.  The  several  arguments  advanced  by  Maimonides  against 
the  employment  of  attributes  are  intended  to  show  that  those  who  assume  the 
real  existence  of  Divine  attributes  may  possibly  utter  with  their  lips  the  creed  of 
the  Unity  and  the  Incorporeality  of  God,  but  they  cannot  truly  believe  it.  A 
demonstration  of  this  fact  would  be  needless,  if  the  Attributists  had  not  put  forth 
their  false  theses  and  defended  them  with  the  utmost  tenacity,  though  with  the 
most  absurd  arguments. 

After  this  explanation  the  author  proceeds  to  discuss  the  impropriety  of 
assigning  attributes  to  God.  The  Attributists  admit  that  God  is  the  Primal 
Cause,  One,  incorporeal,  free  from  emotion  and  privation,  and  that  He  is  not 
comparable  to  any  of  His  creatures.  Maimonides  therefore  contends  that  any 
attributes  which,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  are  in  contradiction  to  this  creed, 
should  not  be  applied  to  God.  By  this  rule  he  rejects  four  classes  of  attributes  : 
viz.,  those  which  include  a  definition,  a  partial  definition,  a  quality,  or  a  relation. 
The  definition  of  a  thing  includes  its  efficient  cause  ;  and  since  God  is  the 
Primal  Cause,  He  cannot  be  defined,  or  described  by  a  partial  definition.  A 
quality,  whether  psychical,  physical,  emotional,  or  quantitative,  is  always  re- 
garded as  something  distinct  from  its  substratum  ;  a  thing  which  possesses  any 
quality,  consists,  therefore,  of  that  quality  and  a  substratum,  and  should  not 
be  called  one.  All  relations  of  time  and  space  imply  corporeality  ;  all  relations 
between  two  objects  are,  to  a  certain  degree,  a  comparison  between  these  two 
objects.  To  employ  any  of  these  attributes  in  reference  to  God  would  be  as 
much  as  to  declare  that  God  is  not  the  Primal  Cause,  that  He  is  not  One,  that 
He  is  corporeal,  or  that  He  is  comparable  to  His  creatures. 

There  is  only  one  class  of  attributes  to  which  Maimonides  makes  no  objection, 
viz.  such  as  describe  actions,  and  to  this  class  belong  all  the  Divine  attributes 
which  occur  in  the  Scriptures.  The  "Thirteen  Attributes"  {shelosh  esreh 
middot,  Exod.  xxxiv.  6,  7)  serve  as  an  illustration.  They  were  communicated 
to  Moses  when  he,  as  the  chief  of  the  Israelites,  wished  to  know  the  way  in 
which  God  governs  the  universe,  in  order  that  he  himself  in  ruling  the  nation 
might  follow  it,  and  thereby  promote  their  real  well-being. 

On  the  whole,  the  opponents  of  Maimonides  admit  the  correctness  of  this 
theory.     Only  a  small  number  of  attributes  are   the  subject  of  dispute.     The 


xlvi  GUIDE  FOR   THE  PERPLEXED 

Scriptures  unquestionably  ascribe  to  God  Existence,  Life,  Power,  Wisdom, 
Unity,  Eternity,  and  Will.  The  Attributists  regard  these  as  properties  distinct 
from,  but  co-existing  with,  the  Essence  of  God.  With  great  acumen,  and  with 
equally  great  acerbity,  Maimonides  shows  that  their  theory  is  irreconcilable  with 
their  belief  in  the  Unity  and  the  Incorporeality  of  God.  He  points  out  three 
different  ways  of  interpreting  these  attributes  : — i.  They  may  be  regarded  as 
descriptive  of  the  works  of  God,  and  as  declaring  that  these  possess  such 
properties  as,  in  works  of  man,  would  appear  to  be  the  result  ot  the  will,  the 
power,  and  the  wisdom  of  a  living  being.  2.  The  term  "existing,"  "one," 
"  wise,"  etc.,  are  applied  to  God  and  to  His  creatures  homonymously  ;  as  attri- 
butes ot  God  they  coincide  with  His  Essence  ;  as  attributes  of  anything  beside 
God  they  are  distinct  from  the  essence  of  the  thing.  3.  These  terms  do  not 
describe  a  positive  quality,  but  express  a  negation  of  its  opposite.  This  third 
interpretation  appears  to  have  been  preferred  by  the  author  ;  he  discusses  it 
more  fully  than  the  two  others.  He  observes  that  the  knowledge  of  the  incom- 
prehensible Being  is  solely  of  a  negative  character,  and  he  shows  by  simple  and 
appropriate  examples  that  an  approximate  knowledge  of  a  thing  can  be  attained 
by  mere  negations,  that  such  knowledge  increases  with  the  number  of  these 
negations,  and  that  an  error  in  positive  assertions  is  more  injurious  than  an 
error  in  negative  assertions.  In  describing  the  evils  which  arise  from  the  appli- 
cation of  positive  attributes  to  God,  he  unsparingly  censures  the  hymnologisU, 
because  he  found  them  profuse  in  attributing  positive  epithets  to  the  Deity. 
On  the  basis  of  his  own  theory  he  could  easily  have  interpreted  these  epithets 
in  the  same  way  as  he  explains  the  Scriptural  attributes  of  God.  His  severity 
may,  however,  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  frequent  recurrence  of 
positive  attributes  in  the  literary  composition  of  the  Jews  was  the  cause  that 
the  Mohammedans  charged  the  Jews  with  entertaining  false  notions  of  the 
Deity. 

The  inquiry  into  the  attributes  is  followed  by  a  treatment  of  the  names  of 
God.  It  seems  to  have  been  beyond  the  design  of  the  author  to  elucidate  the 
etymology  of  each  name,  or  to  establish  methodically  its  signification  ;  for  he 
does  not  support  his  explanations  by  any  proof.  His  sole  aim  is  to  show  that 
the  Scriptural  names  of  God  in  their  true  meaning  strictly  harmonize  with  the 
philosophical  conception  of  the  Primal  Cause.  There  are  two  things  which 
have  to  be  distinguished  in  the  treatment  of  the  Primal  Cause  :  the  Primal 
Cause  per  se,  and  its  relation  to  the  Universe.  The  first  is  expressed  by  the 
tetragrammaton  and  its  cognates,  the  second  by  the  several  attributes,  especially 
by  rokeb  bdarabot,  "  He  who  ridcth  on  the  'arabot  "  (Ps.  Ixviii.  4) 

The  tetragrammaton  exclusively  expresses  the  essence  of  God,  and  therefore 
it  is  employed  as  a  nomen  proprium.  In  the  mystery  of  this  name,  and  others 
mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  as  consisting  of  twelve  and  of  forty-two  letters, 
Maimonides  finds  no  other  secret  than  the  solution  of  some  metaphysical 
problems.  The  subject  of  these  problems  is  not  actually  known,  but  the  author 
supposes  that  it  referred  to  the  "  absolute  existence  of  the  Deity."  He  discovers 
the  same  idea  in  ehyeh  (Exod.  iii.  14),  in  accordance  with  the  explanation  added 
in  the  Sacred  Text  :  asher  ehyeh,  "that  is,  I  am."  In  the  course  of  this  discus- 
sion he  exposes  the  folly  or  sinfulness  of  those  who  pretend  to  work  miracles  by 
the  aid  of  these  and  similar  names. 

With  a  view  of  preparing  the  way  for  his  peculiar  interpretation  of  rokeb 
ba'arabot,  he  explains  a  variety  of  Scriptural  passages,  and  treats  of  several 
philosophical  terms  relative  to  the  Supreme  Being.  Such  expressions  as  "  the 
word  of  God,"  "the  work  of  God,"  "the  work  of  His  fingers,"  "He  made," 
"  He  spake,"  must  be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense  ;  they  merely  represent  God  as 
the  cause  that  some  work  has  been  produced,  and  that  some  person  has  acquired 


GUIDE   FOR   THE  PERPLEXED  xlvii 

a  certain  knowledge.  The  passage,  "And  He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  " 
(Exod.  XX.  I  i)  is  interpreted  as  follows  :  On  the  seventh  Day  the  forces  and  laws 
were  complete,  which  during  the  previous  six  days  were  in  the  state  of  being 
established  for  the  preservation  of  the  Universe.  They  were  not  to  be  increased 
or  modified. 

It  seems  that  Maimonides  introduced  this  figurative  explanation  with  a  view 
of  showing  that  the  Scriptural  "God"  does  not  differ  from  the  "Primal 
Cause"  or  "Ever-active  Intellect"  of  the  philosophers.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  latter  do  not  reject  the  Unity  of  God,  although  they  assume  that  the  Primal 
Cause  comprises  the  causa  efficiens,  the  agens,  and  the  causa  Jinalis  (or,  the  cause, 
the  means,  and  the  end)  ;  and  that  the  Ever-active  Intellect  comprises  the  intel- 
ligens,  the  intellectus,  and  the  intellectum  (or,  the  thinking  subject,  the  act  ot 
thought,  and  the  object  thought  of)  ;  because  in  this  case  these  apparently 
different  elements  are,  in  fact,  identical.  The  Biblical  term  corresponding  to 
"  Primal  Cause  "  is  rokeb  ba'arabot,  "  riding  on  'arabot."  Maimonides  is  at 
pains  to  prove  t\\3.t' arabot  denotes  "  the  highest  sphere,"  which  causes  the  motion 
of  all  other  spheres,  and  which  thus  brings  about  the  natural  course  of  produc- 
tion and  destruction.  By  "  the  highest  sphere  "  he  does  not  understand  a 
material  sphere,  but  the  immaterial  world  of  intelligences  and  angels,  "the  seat 
of  justice  and  judgment,  stores  of  life,  peace,  and  blessings,  the  seat  of  the  souls 
of  the  righteous,"  etc.  Rokeb  ba'arabot,  therefore,  means  :  He  presides  over  the 
immaterial  beings.  He  is  the  source  of  their  powers,  by  which  they  move  the 
spheres  and  regulate  the  course  of  nature.  This  theory  is  more  fully  developed 
in  the  Second  Part. 

The  next  section  (chap.  Ixxi.-lxxvi.)  treats  of  the  Kalam.  According  to  the 
author,  the  method  of  the  Kalam  is  copied  from  the  Christian  Fathers,  who 
applied  it  in  the  defence  of  their  religious  doctrines.  The  latter  examined  in 
their  writings  the  views  of  the  philosophers,  ostensibly  in  search  of  truth,  in 
reality,  however,  with  the  object  of  supporting  their  own  dogmas.  Subsequently 
Mohammedan  theologians  found  in  these  works  arguments  which  seemed  to 
confirm  the  truth  of  their  own  religion  ;  they  blindly  adopted  these  arguments, 
and  made  no  inquiry  whence  these  had  been  derived.  Maimonides  rejects  a 
priori  the  theories  of  the  Mutakallemim,  because  they  explain  the  phenomena  in 
the  universe  in  conformity  with  preconceived  notions,  instead  of  following  the 
scientific  method  of  the  philosophers.  Among  the  Jews,  especially  in  the  East 
and  in  Africa,  there  were  also  some  who  adopted  the  method  of  the  Kalam  ;  in 
doing  so  they  followed  the  Mu  tazilah  (dissenting  Mohammedans),  not  because 
they  found  it  more  correct  than  the  Kalam  of  the  Ashariyah  (orthodox  Moham- 
medans), but  because  at  the  time  when  the  Jews  became  acquainted  with  the 
Kalam  it  was  only  cultivated  by  the  Mu'tazilah.  The  Jews  in  Spain,  however, 
remained  faitliful  to  the  Aristotelian  philosopliy. 

The  four  principal  dogmas  upheld  by  the  dominant  religions  were  the  creatio 
ex  nihih,  the  Existence  of  God,  His  Incorporcality,  and  His  Unity.  By  the 
philosophers  the  creatio  ex  tiihilo  was  rejected,  but  the  Mutakallemim  defended 
it,  and  founded  upon  it  their  proofs  for  the  other  three  dogmas.  Maimonides 
adopts  the  philosophical  proofs  for  the  Existence,  Incorporcality,  and  Unity  of 
God,  because  they  must  be  admitted  even  by  those  who  deny  the  creatio  ex  nihilo, 
the  proofs  being  independent  of  this  dogma.  In  order  to  show  that  the  Muta- 
kallemim are  mistaken  in  ignoring  the  organization  of  the  existing  order  of 
things,  the  author  gives  a  minute  description  of  the  analogy  between  the  Uni- 
verse, or  Kosmos,  and  man,  the  mikrokosmos  (ch.  Ixxii.).  This  analogy  is 
merely  asserted,  and  the  reader  is  advised  either  to  find  the  proof  by  his  own 
studies,  or  to  accept  the  fact  on  ihe  authority  of  the  learned.  The  Kalam  does 
not  admit  the  existence  of  law,  organization,  and   unity  in   the   universe.      Its 


xlviii  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

adherents  have,  accordinp^ly,  no  trustworthy  criterion  to  determine  whether  a 
thing  is  possible  or  impossible.  Everything  that  is  conceivable  by  imagination 
is  by  them  held  as  possible.  The  several  parts  of  the  universe  are  in  no  relation 
to  each  other  ;  they  all  consist  of  equal  elements  ;  they  are  not  composed  of 
substance  and  properties,  but  of  atoms  and  accidents  :  the  law  of  causality  is 
ignored  ;  man's  actions  are  not  the  result  of  will  and  design,  but  are  mere 
accidents.  Maimonides  in  enumerating  and  discussing  the  twelve  fundamental 
propositions  of  the /T^/aw  (ch.  Ixiii.),  which  embody  these  theories,  had  appar- 
ently no  intention  to  give  a  complete  and  impartial  account  of  the  Kaldm  ;  he 
solely  aimed  at  exposing  the  weakness  of  a  system  which  he  regarded  as  founded 
not  on  a  sound  basis  of  positive  facts,  but  on  mere  fiction  ;  not  on  the  evidences 
of  the  senses  and  of  reason,  but  on  the  illusions  of  imagination. 

After  having  shown  that  the  twelve  fundamental  propositions  of  the  Kaldm 
are  utterly  untenable,  Maimonides  finds  no  difficulty  in  demonstrating  the  in- 
sufficiency of  the  proofs  advanced  by  the  Mutakallemim  in  support  of  the  above- 
named  dogmas.  Seven  arguments  are  cited  which  the  Mutakallemim  employ 
in  support  of  the  creatio  ex  nihilo}-  The  first  argument  is  based  on  the  atomic 
theor)',  viz.,  that  the  universe  consists  of  equal  atoms  without  inherent  proper- 
ties :  all  variety  and  change  observed  in  nature  must  therefore  be  attributed  to 
an  external  force.  Three  arguments  are  supplied  by  the  proposition  that  finite 
things  of  an  infinite  number  cannot  exist  (Propos.  xi.).  Three  other  arguments 
derive  their  support  from  the  following  proposition  (x.)  :  Everj-thing  that  can 
be  imagined  can  have  an  actual  existence.  The  present  order  ot  things  is  only 
one  out  of  the  many  forms  which  are  possible,  and  exist  through  the  fiat  of  a 
determining  power. 

The  Unity  of  God  is  demonstrated  by  the  Mutakallemim  as  follows  :  Two 
Gods  would  have  been  unable  to  produce  the  world  ;  one  would  have  impeded 
the  work  of  the  other.  Maimonides  points  out  that  this  might  have  been 
avoided  by  a  suitable  division  of  labour.  Another  argument  is  as  follows  :  The 
two  Beings  would  have  one  element  in  common,  and  would  differ  in  another  ; 
each  would  thus  consist  of  two  elements,  and  would  not  be  God.  Maimonides 
might  have  suggested  that  the  argument  moves  in  a  circle,  the  unity  of  God 
being  proved  by  assuming  His  unity.  The  following  argument  is  altogether 
unintelligible  :  Both  Gods  are  moved  to  action  by  will  ;  the  will,  being  without 
a  substratum,  could  not  act  simultaneously  in  two  separate  beings.  The  fallacy 
of  the  following  argument  is  clear  :  The  existence  of  otie  God  is  proved  ;  the 
existence  of  a  second  God  is  not  proved,  it  would  be  possible  ;  and  as  possibility 
is  inapplicable  to  God,  there  does  not  exist  a  second  God.  The  possibility  of 
ascertaining  the  existence  of  God  is  here  confounded  with  potentiality  of  exist- 
ence. Again,  if  one  God  suffices,  the  second  God  is  superfluous  ;  if  one  God  is 
not  sufficient,  he  is  not  perfect,  and  cannot  be  a  deity.  Maimonides  objects 
that  it  would  not  be  an  imperfection  in  either  deity  to  act  exclusively  within 
their  respective  provinces.     As  in  the  criticism  of  the  first  argument,  Maimonides 

1  Saadiah  proves  the  existence  of  the  Creator  in  the  following  way  : — i.  The  Universe 
is  limited,  and  therefore  cannot  possess  an  unlimited  force.  2.  All  things  are  compounds  ; 
the  composition  must  be  owing  to  some  external  cause.  3.  Changes  observed  in  all 
beings  are  effected  by  some  external  cause.  4.  If  time  were  infinite,  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  conceive  the  progress  of  time  from  the  present  moment  to  the  future,  or  from 
the  past  to  the  present  moment.  (Emunot  vede'ot,  ch.  i.). — Bahya  founds  his  argu- 
ments on  three  propositions  : — I.  A  thing  cannot  be  its  own  maker,  2.  The  series  of 
successive  causes  is  finite.  3.  Compounds  owe  their  existence  to  an  external  force. 
His  arguments  are  : — l.  The  Universe,  even  the  elements,  are  compounds  consisting 
of  substance  and  form.  2.  In  the  Universe  plan  and  unity  is  discernible.  (Hobot  ha- 
lebabot,  ch.  i.) 


GUIDE   FOR   THE    PERPLEXED  xlix 

seems  here  to  forget  that  the  existence  of  separate  provinces  would  require  a 
superior  determining  Power,  and  the  two  Beings  would  not  properly  be  called 
Gods. 

The  weakest  of  all  arguments  are,  aceording  to  Maimonides,  those  by  which 
the  Mutakallcmim  sought  to  support  the  doctrine  of  God's  Incorporeality.  If 
God  were  corporeal,  He  would  consist  of  atoms,  and  would  not  be  one  ;  or  He 
would  be  comparable  to  other  beings  :  but  a  comparison  implies  the  existence 
of  similar  and  of  dissimilar  elements,  and  God  would  thus  not  be  one.  A 
corporeal  God  would  be  finite,  and  an  external  power  would  be  required  to 
define  those  limits. 


PART  II. 

The  Second  Part  includes  the  following  sections: — i.  Introduction  ;  2.  Philo- 
sophical Proof  of  the  Existence  of  One  Incorporeal  Primal  Cause  (ch.  i.)  ;  3.  On 
the  Spheres  and  the  Intelligences  (il.-xil.)  ;  4.  On  the  theory  of  the  Eternity 
of  the  Universe  (xiil.-xxix.)  ;  5.  Exposition  of  Gen.  i.-Iv.  (xxx.,  xxxi.)  ;  6.  On 
Prophecy  (xxxil.-xlviil.). 

The  enumeration  of  twenty-six  propositions,  by  the  aid  of  which  the  philo- 
sophers prove  the  Existence,  the  Unity,  and  the  Incorporeality  of  the  Primal 
Cause,  forms  the  Introduction  to  the  Second  Part  of  this  work.  The  proposi- 
tions treat  of  the  properties  of  the  finite  and  the  infinite  (I. -Hi.,  x.-xii.,  xvi.), 
of  change  and  motion  (iv.-Ix.,  xlli.-xviii.),  and  of  the  possible  and  the  absolute 
or  necessary  (xx.-xxv.)  ;  they  are  simply  enumerated,  but  are  not  demonstrated. 
Whatever  the  value  of  these  Propositions  may  be,  they  were  inadequate  for  their 
purpose,  and  the  author  is  compelled  to  Introduce  auxiliary  propositions  to 
prove  the  existence  of  an  Infinite,  Incorporeal,  and  uncompounded  Primal  Cause. 
(Arguments  I.  and  III.) 

The   first   and    the   fourth   arguments   may    be   termed   cosmological  proofs. 

They  are  based  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  series  of  causes  for  every  change  is 

finite,  and  terminates  In  the  Primal  Cause.     There  Is  no  essential  difference  In 

the   two  arguments  :    in    the   first   are  discussed  the  causes  ot  the  motion  of  a 

moving  object  ;  the  fourth  treats  of  the  causes  which  bring  about  the  transition 

of  a  thing  from  potentiality  to  reality.     To  prove  that  neither  the  spheres  nor 

a  force  residing  In  them  constitute  the  Primal  Cause,  the  philosophers  employed 

two  propositions,  of  which  the  one  asserts  that  the  revolutions  of  the  spheres 

are    infinite,  and   the  other  denies  the  possibility  that   an  infinite   force  should 

reside  in  a   finite  object.     The  distinction  between  the  finite  in   space  and  the 

finite  In  time  appears  to  have  been  Ignored  ;  for  it  is  not  shown  why  a  force 

infinite  in  time  could  not  reside  in  a  body  finite  In  space.       Moreover,  those 

who,  like  Maimonides,  reject  the  eternity  of  the  universe,  necessarily  reject  this 

proof,  while  those  who  hold  that  the  universe  is  eternal  do  not  admit  that  the 

spheres  have  ever  been  only  potential,  and  passed  from  potentiality  to  actuality. 

The  second  argument  is  supported  by  the  following  supplementary  proposition  : 

If  two  elements  coexist  in  a  state  of  combination,  and  one  of  these  elements  Is 

to    be  found  at  the  same  time  separate,    in   a  free  state.  It   is  certain  that  the 

second    element    is    likewise    to    be    found  by  Itself.      Now,   since   things  exist 

which  combine  in  themselves  motive   power  and   mass  moved   by  that  power, 

and  since  mass  is  found  by  Itself,  motive  power   must  also  be  found  by  Itself 

Independent  of  mass. 

The  third  argument  has  a  logical  character  :  The  universe  is  either  eternal  or 
temporal,  or  partly  eternal  and  partly  temporal.  It  cannot  be  eternal  in  all  its 
parts,  as  many  parts  undergo  destruction  ;  it  is  not  altogether  temporal,  because, 
if  so,  the  universe  could  not  be  reproduced  after  being  destroyed.     The   con- 


1  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

tinued  existence  of  the  universe  leads,  therefore,  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is 
an   immortal  force,  the  Primal  Cause,  besides  the  transient  world. 

These  arguments  have  this  in  common,  that  while  proving  the  existence  of 
a  Primal  Cause,  they  at  the  same  time  demonstrate  the  Unity,  the  Incorporeality, 
and  the  Eternity  of  that  Cause.  Special  proofs  are  nevertheless  superadded  for 
each  of  these  postulates,  and  on  the  whole  they  differ  very  little  from  those  ad- 
vanced by  the  Mohammedan  Theologians. 

This  p'hilosophical  theory  of  the  Primal  Cause  was  adapted  by  Jewish  scholars 
to  the  Biblical  theory  of  the  Creator.  The  universe  is  a  living,  organized  being, 
of  which  the  earth  is  the  centre.  Any  changes  on  this  earth  are  due  to  the 
revolutions  of  the  spheres  ;  the  lowest  or  innermost  sphere,  viz.,  the  one  nearest 
to  the  centre,  is  the  sphere  of  the  moon  ;  the  outermost  or  uppermost  is 
"  the  all-encompassing  sphere."  Numerous  spheres  are  interposed  ;  but  Mai- 
monides  divides  all  the  spheres  into  four  groups,  corresponding  to  the  moon,  the 
sun,  the  planets,  and  the  fixed  stars.  This  division  is  claimed  by  the  author  as  his 
own  discovery  ;  he  believes  that  it  stands  in  relation  to  the  four  causes  of  their 
motions,  the  four  elements  of  the  sublunary  world,  and  the  four  classes  of  beings, 
viz.,  the  mineral,  the  vegetable,  the  animal,  and  the  rational.  The  spheres  have 
souls,  and  are  endowed  with  intellect  ;  their  souls  enable  them  to  move  freely,  and 
the  impulse  to  the  motion  is  given  by  the  intellect  in  conceiving  the  idea  of  the 
Absolute  Intellect.  Each  sphere  has  an  intellect  peculiar  to  itself ;  the  intellect 
attached  to  the  sphere  of  the  moon  is  called  "  the  active  intellect  "  {Sekel  ha-po'el). 
In  support  of  this  theory  numerous  passages  are  cited  both  from  Holy  Writ  and 
from  post-Biblical  Jewish  literature.  The  angels  {elohim,  malakim)  mentioned  in 
the  Bible  are  assumed  to  be  identical  with  the  intellects  of  the  spheres  ;  they  are 
free  agents,  and  their  volition  invariably  tends  to  that  which  is  good  and  noble  ; 
they  emanate  from  the  Primal  Cause,  and  form  a  descending  series  of  beings,  ending 
with  the  active  intellect.  The  transmission  of  power  from  one  element  to  the 
other  is  called  "emanation"  [shefd).  This  transmission  is  performed  without 
the  utterance  of  a  sound  ;  if  any  voice  is  supposed  to  be  heard,  it  is  only  an  illu- 
sion, originating  in  the  human  imagination,  which  is  the  source  of  all  evils  (ch. 

xii.). 

In  accordance  with  this  doctrine,  Maimonides  explains  that  the  three  men  who 
appeared  to  Abraham,  the  angels  whom  Jacob  saw  ascend  and  descend  the  ladder, 
and  all  other  angels  seen  by  man,  are  nothing  but  the  intellects  of  the  spheres,  four 
in  number,  which  emanate  from  the  Primal  Cause  (ch.  x).  In  his  description  of 
the  spheres  he,  as  usual,  follows  Aristotle.  The  spheres  do  not  contain  any  of  the 
four  elements  of  the  sublunary  world,  but  consist  of  a  quintessence,  an  entirely 
different  element.  Whilst  things  on  this  earth  are  transient,  the  beings  which 
inhabit  the  spheres  above  are  eternal.  According  to  Aristotle,  these  spheres,  as 
well  as  their  intellects,  coexist  with  the  Primal  Cause.  Maimonides,  faithful  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  here  departs  from  his  master,  and  holds  that  the 
spheres  and  the  intellects  had  a  beginning,  and  were  brought  into  existence  by  the 
will  of  the  Creator.  He  does  not  attempt  to  give  a  positive  proof  of  his  doctrine  ; 
all  he  contends  is  that  the  theory  of  the  creatio  ex  nihilo  is,  from  a  philosophical 
point  of  view,  not  inferior  to  the  doctrine  which  asserts  the  eternity  of  the  universe, 
and  that   he   can  refute  all  objections  advanced   against    his   theory  (ch.  xiii.- 

xxviii.). 

He  next  enumerates  and  criticises  the  various  theories  respecting  the  origin  of 
the  Universe,  viz.  :  A.  God  created  the  Universe  out  of  nothing.  B.  God  formed 
the  Universe  from  an  eternal  substance.  C.  The  Universe  originating  in  the 
eternal  Primal  Cause  is  co-eternal. — It  is  not  held  necessary  by  the  author  to  dis- 
cuss the  view  of  those  who  do  not  assume  a  Primal  Cause,  since  the  existence  of 
such  a  cause  has  already  been  proved  (ch.  xiii.). 


GUIDE    FOR    THE   PERPLEXED  li 

The  objections  raised  to  a  creatio  ex  n'lhilo  by  its  opponents  are  founded  partly 
on  the  })ropcitics  of  Nature,  ami  partly  on  tbose  of  the  Primal  Cause.  They  inter 
from  the  properties  of  Nature  the  following  arguments  :  (i)  The  first  moving 
force  is  eternal  ;  for  if  it  had  a  beginning,  another  motion  must  have  produced  it, 
and  then  it  would  not  be  tlie  First  moving  force.  (2)  If  the  formless  matter  be 
not  eternal,  it  must  have  been  produced  out  of  another  substance  ;  it  would  then 
have  a  certain  form  by  which  it  might  be  distinguished  from  the  primary  sub- 
stance, and  then  it  would  not  beyor;;//«J.  (3)  The  circular  motion  of  the  spheres 
does  not  involve  the  necessity  of  termination  ;  and  anything  that  is  without  an  end, 
must  be  without  a  beginning.  (4)  Anything  brought  to  existence  existed  pre- 
viously/« /xj/fw/m  ,•  something  must  therefore  have  pre-existed  of  which  potential 
existence  could  be  predicated.  Some  support  for  the  theory  of  the  eternity  ot  the 
heavens  has  been  derived  from  the  general  belief  in  the  eternity  of  the  heavens. — 
The  properties  of  the  Primal  Cause  furnished  the  following  arguments  : — If  it 
were  assumed  that  the  Universe  was  created  from  nothing,  it  would  imply  that  the 
First  Cause  had  changed  from  the  condition  of  a  potential  Creator  to  that  of  an 
actual  Creator,  or  that  His  will  had  undergone  a  change,  or  that  He  must  be  im- 
perfect, because  He  produced  a  perishable  work,  or  that  He  had  been  inactive 
during  a  certain  period.  All  these  contingencies  would  be  contrary  to  a  true  con- 
ception of  the  First  Cause  (ch.  xiv.). 

Maimonides  is  of  opinion  that  the  arguments  based  on  the  properties  of  things 
in  Nature  are  inadmissible,  because  the  laws  by  which  the  Universe  is  regulated 
need  not  have  been  in  force  before  the  Universe  was  in  existence.  This  refutation 
is  styled  by  our  author  "  a  strong  wall  built  round  the  Law,  able  to  resist  all 
attacks"  (ch.  xvii.).  In  a  similar  manner  the  author  proceeds  against  the  objec- 
tions founded  on  the  properties  of  the  First  Cause.  Purely  intellectual  beings,  he 
says,  are  not  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  material  bodies  ;  that  which  necessitates  a 
change  in  the  latter  or  in  the  will  of  man  need  not  produce  a  change  in  immaterial 
beings.  As  to  the  belief  that  the  heavens  are  inhabited  by  angels  and  deities,  it  has 
not  its  origin  in  the  real  existence  of  these  supernatural  beings  ;  it  was  suggested 
to  man  by  meditation  on  the  apparent  grandeur  of  heavenly  phenomena  (ch. 
xviii.). 

Maimonides  next  proceeds  to  explain  how,  independently  of  the  authority  or 
Scripture,  he  has  been  led  to  adopt  the  belief  in  the  creatio  ex  tiihilo.  Admitting 
that  the  great  variety  of  the  things  in  the  sublunary  world  can  be  traced  to  those 
immutable  laws  which  regulate  the  influence  of  the  spheres  on  the  beings  below — 
the  variety  in  the  spheres  can  only  be  explained  as  the  result  of  God's  free  will. 
According  to  Aristotle — the  principal  authority  for  the  eternity  of  the  Universe — 
it  is  impossible  that  a  simple  being  should,  according  to  the  laws  of  nature,  be  the 
cause  of  various  and  compound  beings.  Another  reason  for  the  rejection  of  the 
Eternity  of  the  Universe  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  astronomer  Ptolemy 
has  proved  the  incorrectness  of  the  view  which  Aristotle  had  of  celestial  spheres, 
although  the  system  of  that  astronomer  is  likewise  far  from  being  perfect  and 
final  (ch.  xxiv.).  It  is  impossible  to  obtain  a  correct  notion  of  the  properties  of 
the  heavenly  spheres  ;  "  the  heaven,  even  the  heavens,  are  the  Lord's,  but  the 
earth  hath  He  given  to  the  children  of  man  "  (Ps.  cxv.  1 6).  The  author,  observing 
that  the  arguments  against  the  cr^<z//o  ^;«r  «/Z'//o  are  untenable,  adheres  to  his  theory, 
which  was  taught  by  such  prophets  as  Abraham  and  Moses.  Although  each 
Scriptural  quotation  could,  by  a  figurative  interpretation,  be  made  to  agree  with 
the  opposite  theory,  Maimonides  declines  to  ignore  the  literal  sense  of  a  term, 
unless  it  be  in  opposition  to  well-established  truths,  as  is  the  case  with  anthropo- 
morphic expressions  ;  for  the  latter,  if  taken  literally,  would  be  contrary  to  the 
demonstrated  truth  of  God's  incorporeality  (ch.  xxv.).  He  is  therefore  surprised 
that   the  author  of  Pirke-di  Rabbi  Eliezer  ventured  to  assume  the   eternity  of 


lu  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

matter,  and  he  thinks  it  possible  that  Rabbi  Eliezer  carried  the  license  ot  figura- 
tive speech  too  far.      (Ch.  xxvi.). 

The  theory  of  the  creatio  ex  n;7'r7o  does  not  involve  the  belief  that  the  Universe 
will  at  a  future  time  be  destroyed  ;  the  Bible  distinctly  teaches  the  creation,  but 
not  the  destruction  of  the  world  except  in  passages  which  are  undoubtedly  con- 
ceived in  a  metaphorical  sense.  On  the  contrary,  respecting  certain  parts  of  the 
Universe  it  is  clearly  stated  "  He  established  them  forever."  (Ps.  cxlviii.  5.)  The 
destruction  of  the  Universe  would  be,  as  the  creation  has  been,  a  direct  act  of  the 
Divine  will,  and  not  the  result  of  those  immutable  laws  which  govern  the 
I^niverse.  The  Divine  will  would  in  that  case  set  aside  those  laws,  both  in  the 
initial  and  the  final  stages  of  the  Universe.  Within  this  interval,  however,  the  laws 
remain  undisturbed  (ch.  xxvii.).  Apparent  exceptions,  the  miracles,  originate  in 
these  laws,  although  man  is  unable  to  perceive  the  causal  relation.  The  Biblical 
account  of  the  creation  concludes  with  the  statement  that  God  rested  on  the 
seventh  day,  that  is  to  say,  He  declared  that  the  work  was  complete  ;  no  new 
act  of  creation  was  to  take  place,  and  no  new  law  was  to  be  introduced.  It  is 
true  that  the  second  and  the  third  chapters  of  Genesis  appear  to  describe  a  new 
creation,  that  of  Eve,  and  a  new  law,  viz.,  that  of  man's  mortality,  but  these 
chapters  are  explained  as  containing  an  allegorical  representation  of  man's 
psychical  and  intellectual  faculties,  or  a  supplemental  detail  of  the  contents  of 
the  first  chapter.  Maimonides  seems  to  prefer  the  allegorical  explanation  which, 
»  it  seems,  he  had  in  view  without  expressly  stating  it,  in  his  treatment  of 
Adam's  sin  and  punishment.  (Part  I.  ch.  ii.)  It  is  certainly  inconsistent  on  the 
one  hand  to  admit  that  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Almighty  the  laws  of  nature  may 
become  inoperative,  and  that  the  whole  Universe  may  become  annihilated,  and  on 
the  other  hand  to  deny,  that  during  the  existence  of  the  Universe,  any  of  the 
natural  laws  ever  have  been  or  ever  will  be  suspended.  It  seems  that  Maimonides 
could  not  conceive  the  idea  that  the  work  of  the  All-wise  should  be,  as  the  Muta- 
kallemim  taught — without  plan  and  system,  or  that  the  laws  once  laid  down 
should  not  be  sufficient  for  all  emergencies. 

The  account  of  the  Creation  given  in  the  book  of  Genesis  is  explained  by 
the  author  according  to  the  following  two  rules  :  First  its  language  is  allegorical ; 
and.  Secondly,  the  terms  employed  are  homonyms.  The  words  erez,  mayim, 
ruah,  and  hoshek  in  the  second  verse  (ch.  i.),  are  homonyms  and  denote  the  four 
elements  :  earth,  water,  air,  and  fire ;  in  other  instances  ere-z  is  the  terrestrial 
globe,  mayim  is  water  or  vopour,  ruah  denotes  wind,  and  hoshek  darkness: 
According  to  Maimonides,  a  summary  of  the  first  chapter  may  be  given  thus  ; 
God  created  the  Universe  by  producing  first  the  reshit  the  "beginning"  Gen. 
i.  i),  or  hathalahf  i.e.,  the  intellects  which  give  to  the  spheres  both  existence 
and  motion,  and  thus  become  the  source  of  the  existence  of  the  entire  Universe. 
At  first  this  Universe  consisted  of  a  chaos  of  elements,  but  its  form  was  suc- 
cessively developed  by  the  influence  of  the  spheres,  and  more  directly  by  the 
action  of  light  and  darkness,  the  properties  of  which  were  fixed  on  the  first 
day  of  the  Creation.  In  the  subsequent  five  days  minerals,  plants,  animals,  and 
the  intellectual  beings  came  into  existence.  The  seventh  day,  on  which  the 
Universe  was  for  the  first  time  ruled  by  the  same  natural  laws  which  still  con- 
tinue in  operation,  was  distinguished  as  a  day  blessed  and  sanctified  by  the 
Creator,  who  designed  it  to  proclaim  the  creatio  ex  nikilo  (Exod.  xx.  11).  The 
Israelites  were  moreover  commanded  to  keep  this  Sabbath  in  commemoration 
of  their  departure  from  Egypt  (Deut.  v.  15),  because  during  the  period  of  the 
Egyptian  bondage,  they  had  not  been  permitted  to  rest  on  that  day.  In  the 
history  of  the  first  sin  of  man,  Adam,  Eve,  and  the  serpent  represent  the  intel- 
lect, the  body,  and  the  imagination.  In  order  to  complete  the  imagery, 
Hamael  or  Satan,  mentioned  in  the  Midrasii  in  connexion  with    this  account, 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  liii 

is  added  as  representing  man's  appetitive  faculties.  Imagination,  the  source  of 
error,  is  directly  aided  by  the  appetitive  faculty,  and  the  two  are  intimately 
connected  with  the  body,  to  which  man  generally  gives  paramount  attention, 
and  for  the  sake  of  which  he  indulges  in  sins  ;  in  the  end,  however,  they  sub- 
due the  intellect  and  weaken  its  power.  Instead  of  obtaining  pure  and  real 
knowledge,  man  forms  false  conceptions ;  in  consequence,  the  body  is  subject 
to  suffering,  whilst  the  imagination,  instead  of  being  guided  by  the  intellect 
and  attaining  a  higher  development  becomes  debased  and  depraved.  In  the 
three  sons  of  Adam,  Kain,  Abel,  and  Seth,  Maimonides  finds  an  allusion  to 
the  three  elements  in  man  :  the  vegetable,  the  animal,  and  the  intellectual. 
First,  the  animal  element  (Abel)  becomes  extinct  ;  then  the  vegetable  elements 
(Kain)  are  dissolved  ;  only  the  third  element,  the  intellect  (Seth),  survives,  and 
forms  the  basis  of  mankind  (ch.  xxx.,  xxxi.). 

Maimonides  having  so  far  stated  his  opinion  in  explicit  terms,  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  what  he  had  in  view  by  the  avowal  that  he  could  not  disclose 
everything.  It  is  unquestionably  no  easy  matter  to  adapt  each  verse  in  the 
first  chapters  of  Genesis  to  the  foregoing  allegory  ;  but  such  an  adaptation  is, 
according  to  the  author's  own  view  (Part  I.,  Introd.,  p.  19),  not  only  un- 
necessary, but  actually  objectionable. 

In    the   next  section    (xxxii.-xlviii.)   Maimonides   treats  of   Prophecy.       He 
mentions  the    following   three    opinions  : — i.    Any  person,    irrespective   of  his 
physical  or  moral  qualifications,   may   be    summoned    by  the  Almighty  to  the 
mission  of  a   prophet.      2.  Prophecy  is  the  highest  degree  of  mental   develop- 
ment, and    can    only    be    attained    by  training    and    study.      3.  The    gift    of 
prophecy  depends  on  physical,  moral,  and  mental  training,  combined  with  in- 
spiration.      The  author  adopts  the  last-mentioned  opinion.       He  defines  pro- 
phecy  as   an    emanation  (shefa),    which    through   the  will   of  the  Almighty 
descends    from  the  Active  Intellect    to    the   intellect    and    the   imagination  of 
thoroughly  qualified  persons.      The  prophet    is    thus    distinguished  both  from 
wise  men  whose  intellect  alone  received  the  necessary  impulse  from  the  Active 
Intellect,    and  from    diviners  or  dreamers,    whose  imagination   alone   has  been 
influenced  by  the  Active  Intellect.     Although  it  is  assumed  that  the  attainment 
of  this  prophetic  faculty  depends  on  God's  will,  this  dependence  is  nothing  else 
but   the   relation   which    all   things  bear  to  the  Primal   Cause  ;  for   the  Active 
Intellect  acts  in  conformity  with  the  laws  established  by  the  will  of  God  ;  it 
gives  an  impulse  to  the  intellect  of  man,   and,  bringing   to  light   those  mental 
powers  which  lay  dormant,  it  merely  turns  potential  faculty  into  real  action. 
These  faculties  can  be  perfected  to  such  a  degree  as  to  enable  man  to  apprehend 
the  highest  truths  intuitively,  without  passing  through  all  the  stages  of  research 
required    by   ordinary    persons.        The    same    fact   is    noticed    with   respect   to 
imagination  ;  man  sometimes  forms  faithful  images  of  objects  and  events  which 
cannot  be  traced  to  the    ordinary    channel    of    information,    viz.,   impressions 
made  on  the  senses.     Since  prophecy  is  the  result  of  a  natural  process,  it  may 
appear  surprising  that,  of  the  numerous  men  excelling  in  wisdom,  so  few  became 
prophets.        Maimonides  accounts    for  this  fact   by  assuming   that  the  moral 
faculties  of  such  men  had  not  been  duly  trained.     None  of  them  had,  in  the 
author's  opinion,  gone  through  the  moral  discipline  indispensable  for  the  voca- 
tion of  a  prophet.     Besides  this,  everything  which  obstructs  mental  improve- 
ment, misdirects  the  imagination  or  impairs  the  physical  strength,  and  precludes 
man  from  attaining  to  the  rank  of  prophet.      Hence  no  prophecy  was  vouch- 
safed to  Jacob  during  the  period  of  his  anxieties  on  account  of  his  separation 
from  Joseph.    Nor  did  Moses  receive  a  Divine  message  during  the  years  which 
the  Israelites,  under  Divine  punishment,  spent  in  the  desert.   On  the  other  hand, 
music  and  song  awakened  the  prophetic  power  (comp.   2   Kings  iii.    15),  and 


fiv  GUIDE    FOR    THE  PERPLEXED. 

"  The  spirit  of  prophecy  alights  only  on  him  who  is  wise,  strong,  and  rich  " 
(B;ihyl.  Talm.  Shabbat,  92a).  Although  the  preparation  for  a  prophetic 
mission,  the  pursuit  of  earnest  and  persevering  study,  as  also  the  execution  of 
the  Divine  dictates,  required  physical  strength,  yet  in  the  moment  when  the 
prophecy  was  received  the  functions  of  the  bodily  organs  were  suspended.  The 
intellect  then  acquired  true  knowledge,  which  presented  itself  to  the  prophet's 
imagination  in  forms  peculiar  to  that  faculty.  Pure  ideals  are  almost  incom- 
prehensible ;  man  must  translate  them  into  language  which  he  is  accustomed  to 
use,  and  he  must  adapt  them  to  his  own  mode  of  thinking.  In  receiving 
prophecies  and  communicating  them  to  others  the  exercise  of  the  prophet's 
imagination  was  therefore  as  essential  as  that  of  his  intellect,  and  Maimonides 
seems  to  apply  to  this  imagination  the  term  "angel,"  which  is  so  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  Bible  as  the  medium  of  communication  between  the  Supreme 
Being  and  the  prophet. 

Only  Moses  held  his  bodily  functions  under  such  control  that  even  without 
their  temporary  suspension  he  was  able  to  receive  prophetic  inspiration  ;  the 
interposition  of  the  imagination  was  in  his  case  not  needed  :  "  God  spoke  to 
him  mouth  to  mouth"  (Num.  xii.  8).  Moses  differed  so  completely  from 
other  prophets  that  the  term  "prophet"  could  only  have  been  applied  to  him 
and  other  men  by  way  of  homonymy. 

The  impulses  descending  from  the  Active  Intellect  to  man's  intellect  and  to 
his  imagination  produce  various  effects,  according  to  his  physical,  moral,  and 
intellectual  condition.  Some  men  are  thus  endowed  with  extraordinary  courage 
and  with  an  ambition  to  perform  great  deeds,  or  they  feel  themselves  impelled 
to  appeal  mightily  to  their  fellowmen  by  means  of  exalted  and  pure  language. 
Such  men  are  filled  with  "  the  spirit  of  the  Lord,"  or,  "  with  the  spirit  of 
holiness."  To  this  distinguished  class  belonged  Jephthah,  Samson,  David, 
Solomon,  and  the  authors  of  the  Hagiographa.  Though  above  the  standard 
of  ordinary  men,  they  were  not  included  in  the  rank  of  prophets.  Maimonides 
divides  the  prophets  into  two  groups,  viz.,  those  who  receive  inspiration  in 
a  dream  and  those  who  receive  it  in  a  vision.  The  first  group  includes  the 
following  five  classes  :  —  i.  Those  who  see  symbolic  figures  ;  2.  Those  who  hear  a 
voice  addressing  them  without  perceiving  the  speaker  ;  3.  Those  who  see  a 
man  and  hear  him  addressing  them  ;  4.  Those  who  see  an  angel  addressing 
them  ;  5.  Those  who  see  God  and  hear  His  voice.  The  other  group  is 
divided  in  a  similar  manner,  but  contains  only  the  first  four  classes,  for  Mai- 
monides considered  it  impossible  that  a  prophet  should  see  God  in  a  vision. 
This  classification  is  based  on  the  various  expressions  employeil  in  the  Scriptures 
to  describe  the  several  prophecies. 

When  the  Israelites  received  the  Law  at  Mount  Sinai,  they  distinctly  heard 
the  first  two  commandments,  which  include  the  doctrines  of  the  Existence  and 
the  Unity  of  God  ;  of  the  other  eight  commandments,  which  enunciate  moral, 
not  metaphysical  truths,  they  heard  the  mere  "sound  of  words"  ;  and  it  was 
through  the  mouth  of  Moses  that  the  Divine  instruction  was  revealed  to  them. 
Maimonides  defends  this  opinion  by  quotations  from  the  Talmud  and  the 
Midrashim. 

The  theory  that  imagination  was  an  essential  element  in  prophecy  is  sup- 
ported by  the  fact  that  figurative  speech  predominates  in  the  prophetical 
writings,  which  abound  in  figures,  hyperbolical  expressions  and  allegories.  The 
symbolical  acts  which  are  described  in  connexion  with  the  visions  of  the 
prophets,  such  as  the  translation  of  Ezekiel  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  (Ez. 
viii.  3),  Isaiah's  walking  about  naked  and  barefoot  (Isa.  xx.  2),  Jacob's  wrestling 
with  the  angel  (Gen.  xxxii.  27  ^yy.),  and  the  speaking  of  Balaam's  ass  (Num. 
xxii.  28),  had  no  positive  reality.     The  prophets,  employing  an  elliptical  style, 


GUIDE  FOR  THE  PERPLEXED  Iv 

frequently  omitted  to  state  that  a  certain  event  related  by  tliem  was  part  of  a 
vision  or  a  dream.  In  consequence  of  such  elliptical  speech  events  are  de- 
scribed in  the  Bible  as  coming  directly  from  God,  although  they  simply  arc  the 
effect  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature,  and  as  such  depend  on  the  will  of  God. 
Such  passages  cannot  be  misunderstood  when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  every 
event  and  every  natural  phenomenon  can  for  its  origin  be  traced  to  the  Primal 
Cause.  In  this  sense  the  prophets  employ  such  phrases  as  the  following  :  "And 
/  will  command  the  clouds  that  they  rain  no  rain  upon  it"  (Isa.  v,  6)  ;  "  I  have 
also  called  my  mighty  men  "  {ibid.  xi.  3). 


PART    III. 

This  part  contains  the  following  six  sections  :— i.  Exposition  of  the  ma'asek 
mercabah  (Ez.  i.),  ch.  i.  vii.  ;  2.  On  the  nature  and  the  origin  of  evil,  ch.  viii.  xii.  ; 
3.  On  the  object  of  the  creation,  ch.  xiii.,-xv.  ;  4.  On  Providence  and  Omni- 
science, ch.xvi.-xxv.  ;  5.  On  the  object  of  the  Divine  precepts  {td ame  ha-mi'^'vot) 
and  the  historical  portions  of  the  Bible,  ch.  xxv.-xl.  ;  6.  A  guide  to  the  proper 
worship  of  God. 

With  great  caution  Maimonides  approaches  the  explanation  of  the  mdaseh 
mercabah,  the  chariot  which  Ezekiel  beheld  in  a  vision  (Ez.  i.).  The 
mysteries  included  in  the  description  of  the  Divine  chariot  had  been  orally 
transmitted  from  generation  to  generation,  but  in  consequence  of  the  dispersion 
of  the  Jews  the  chain  of  tradition  was  broken,  and  the  knowledge  of  these 
mysteries  had  vanished.  Whatever  he  knew  of  those  mysteries  he  owed 
exclusively  to  his  own  intellectual  faculties  ;  he  therefore  could  not  reconcile 
himself  to  the  idea  that  his  knowledge  should  die  with  him.  He  committed 
his  exposition  of  the  mdaseh  mercabah  and  the  mdaseh  bereshit  to  writing, 
but  did  not  divest  it  of  its  original  mysterious  character  ;  so  that  the  explan- 
ation was  fully  intelligible  to  the  initiated— that  is  to  say,  to  the  philosopher 
— but  to  the  ordinary  reader  it  was  a  mere  paraphrase  of  the  Biblical  text. — 
(Introduction.) 

The  first  seven  chapters  are  devoted  to  the  exposition  of  the  Divine  chariot. 
According  to  Maimonides  three  distinct  parts  are  to  be  noticed,  each  of  which 
begins  with  the  phrase,  "And  I  saw."  These  parts  correspond  to  the  three 
parts  of  the  Universe,  the  sublunary  world,  the  spheres  and  the  intelligences. 
First  of  all  the  prophet  is  made  to  behold  the  material  world  which  consists 
of  the  earth  and  the  spheres,  and  of  these  the  spheres,  as  the  more  important, 
are  noticed  first.  In  the  Second  Part,  in  which  the  nature  of  the  spheres  is 
discussed,  the  author  dwells  with  pride  on  his  discovery  that  they  can  be 
divided  into  four  groups.  This  discovery  he  now  employs  to  show  that  the  four 
"  hayyot "  (animals)  represent  the  four  divisions  of  the  spheres.  He  points  out 
that  the  terms  which  the  prophet  uses  in  the  description  of  the  hayyot  are  iden- 
tical with  terms  applied  to  the  properties  of  the  spheres.  For  the  four  hayyot 
or  "angels,"  or  cherubim,  (i)  have  human  form  ;  (2)  have  human  faces  ; 
(3)  possess  characteristics  of  other  animals  ;  (4)  have  human  hands  ;  (5)  their 
feet  are  straight  and  round  (cylindrical)  ;  (6)  their  bodies  are  closely  joined  to 
each  other;  (7)  only  their  faces  and  their  wings  are  separate  ;  (8)  their  sub- 
stance is  transparent  and  refulgent  ;  (9)  they  move  uniformly  ;  (10)  each  moves 
in  its  own  direction;  (11)  they  run;  (12)  swift  as  lightning  they  return 
towards  their  starting  point  ;  and  (13)  they  move  in  consequence  of  an  extra- 
neous impulse  (ruah).  In  a  similar  manner  the  spheres  are  described  :— (i)they 
possess  the  characteristics  of  man,  viz.,  life  and  intellect  ;  (2)  they  consist  like 
man  of  body  and  soul  ;  (3)  they  are  strong,  mighty  and  swift,  like  the  ox,  the 
lion,  and  the  eagle  ;  (4)  they  perform  all  manner  of  work  as   though  they  had 


Ivi  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

hands  ;  (5)  they  are  round,  and  are  not  divided  into  parts  ;  (6)  no  vacuum 
intervenes  between  one  sphere  and  the  other  ;  (7)  they  may  be  considered  as 
one  being,  but  in  respect  to  the  intellects,  which  are  the  causes  of  their  existence 
and  motion,  they  appear  as  four  different  beings  ;  (8)  they  are  transparent  and 
refulgent;  {9)  each  sphere  moves  uniformly,  (10)  and  according  to  its  special 
laws  ;  (11)  they  revolve  with  great  velocity  ;  (12)  each  point  returns  again  to 
its  previous  position  ;  (13)  they  are  self-moving,  yet  the  impulse  emanates  from 
an  external  power. 

In  the  second  part  of  the  vision  the  prophet  saw  the  ofannim.  These  represent 
the  four  elements  of  the  sublunary  world.  For  the  ofannim  (i)  are  connected 
with  the  kayyotzx^A  with  the  earth  ;  (2)  they  have  four  faces,  and  are  four  separate 
beings,  but  interpenetrate  each  other  "as  though  it  were  a  wheel  in  the  midst 
of  a  wheel"  (Ez.  i.  16)  ;  (3)  they  are  covered  with  eyes  ;  (4)  they  are  not 
self-moving  ;  (5)  they  are  set  in  motion  by  the  hayyot ;  (6)  their  motion  is  not 
circular  but  rectilinear.  The  same  may  almost  be  said  of  the  four  elements  : — 
(i)  they  are  in  close  contact  with  the  spheres,  being  encompassed  by  the  sphere 
of  the  moon  ;  earth  occupies  the  centre,  water  surrounds  earth,  air  has  its  position 
between  water  and  fire  ;  (2)  this  order  is  not  invariably  maintained  ;  the  respec- 
tive portions  change  and  they  become  intermixed  and  combined  with  each  other  ; 

(3)  though  they  are  only  four  elements  they  form  an  infinite  number  of  things  ; 

(4)  not  being  animated  they  do  not  move  of  their  own  accord  ;  (5)  they  are  set 
in  motion  by  the  action  of  the  spheres  ;  (6)  when  a  portion  is  displaced  it  returns 
in  a  straight  line  to  its  original  position. 

In  the  third  vision  Ezekiel  saw  a  human  form  above  the  fpayyot.  The  figure 
was  divided  in  the  middle  ;  in  the  upper  portion  the  prophet  only  noticed  that 
it  was  hashmal,  (mysterious)  ;  from  the  loins  downwards  tliere  was  "  the  vision 
of  the  likeness  of  the  Divine  Glory,"  and  "  the  likeness  of  the  throne."  The 
world  of  Intelligences  was  represented  by  the  figure  ;  these  can  only  be  per- 
ceived in  as  far  as  they  influence  the  spheres,  but  their  relation  to  the  Creator  is 
beyond  human  comprehension.  The  Creator  himself  is  not  represented  in  this 
vision. 

The  key  to  the  whole  vision  Maimonides  finds  in  the  introductory  words, 
"And  the  heavens  were  opened," and  in  the  minute  description  of  the  place  and 
the  time  of  the  revelation.  When  pondering  on  the  grandeur  of  the  spheres 
and  their  influences,  which  vary  according  to  time  and  place,  man  begins  to 
think  of  the  existence  of  the  Creator.  At  the  conclusion  of  this  exposition 
Maimonides  declares  that  he  will,  in  the  subsequent  chapters,  refrain  from  giving 
further  explanation  of  the  ma'aseh  mercabah.  The  foregoing  summary,  how- 
ever, shows  that  the  opinion  of  the  author  on  this  subject  is  fully  stated,  and  it 
is  indeed  difficult  to  conceive  what  additional  disclosures  he  could  still  have 
made. 

The  task  which  the  author  has  proposed  to  himself  in  the  Preface  he  now 
regarded  as  accomplished.  He  has  discussed  the  method  of  the  Kalam,  the 
system  of  the  philosophers,  and  his  own  theory  concerning  the  relation  between 
the  Primal  Cause  and  the  Universe  :  he  has  explained  the  Biblical  account  of 
the  creation,  the  nature  of  prophecy,  and  the  mysteries  in  Ezekiel's  vision.  In 
the  remaining  portion  of  the  work  the  author  attempts  to  solve  certain  theo- 
logical problems,  as  though  he  wished  to  obviate  the  following  objections,  which 
might  be  raised  to  his  theory  that  there  is  a  desijTi  throughout  the  creation,  and 
that  the  entire  Universe  is  subject  to  the  law  of  causation  : — What  is  the  purpose 
of  the  evils  which  attend  human  life  >  For  what  purpose  was  the  world  created  .? 
In  how  far  does  Providence  interfere  with  the  natural  course  of  events  t  Does 
God  know  and  foresee  man's  actions  .>  To  what  end  was  the  Divine  Law 
revealed  ?     These  problems  are  treated  seriatim. 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  Ivii 

All  evils,  Maiinonides  holds,  orij;inate  in  the  material  element  of  man's 
existence.  Those  who  are  able  to  emancipate  themselves  from  the  tyranny  ol 
the  body,  and  unconditionally  to  submit  to  the  dictates  of  reason,  are  protected 
from  many  evils.  Man  should  disrcfj^ard  the  cravings  of  the  body,  avoid  them 
as  topics  of  conversation,  and  keep  his  thoughts  far  away  from  them  ;  convivial 
and  erotic  songs  debase  man's  noblest  gifts — thought  and  speech.  Matter  is 
the  partition  separating  man  from  the  pure  Intellects  ;  it  is  "the  thickness  of 
the  cloud  "  which  true  knowledge  has  to  traverse  before  it  reaches  man.  In 
reality,  evil  is  the  mere  negative  of  good  :  "  God  saw  all  that  He  had  made, 
and  behold  it  was  very  good  "  (Gen.  i.  31).  Evil  does  not  exist  at  all.  When 
evils  are  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  work  of  God,  the  Scriptural  expres- 
sions must  not  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense. 

There  are  three  kinds  of  evils  : — i.  Evils  necessitated  by  those  laws  of  pro- 
duction and  destruction  by  which  the  species  are  perpetuated.  2.  Evils  which 
men  inflict  on  each  other  ;  they  are  comparatively  few,  especially  among  civilized 
men.  3.  Evils  which  man  brings  upon  himself,  and  which  comprise  the  majority 
of  existing  evils.  The  consideration  of  these  three  classes  of  evils  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  "the  Lord  is  good  to  all,  and  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all 
his  works  "  (Ps.  cxlv.  9). 

The  question.  What  is  the  object  of  the  creation  ?  must  be  left  unanswered. 
The  creation  is  the  result  of  the  will  of  God.  Also  those  who  believe  that  the 
Universe  is  eternal  must  admit  that  they  are  unable  to  discover  the  purpose  of 
the  Universe.  It  would,  however,  not  be  illogical  to  assume  that  the  spheres 
have  been  created  for  the  sake  of  man,  notwithstanding  the  great  dimensions  of 
the  former  and  the  smallness  of  the  latter.  Still  it  must  be  conceded  that,  even 
if  mankind  were  the  main  and  central  object  of  creation,  there  is  no  absolute 
interdependence  between  them  ;  for  it  is  a  matter  of  course  that,  under  altered 
conditions,  man  could  exist  without  the  spheres.  All  teleological  theories  must 
therefore  be  confined  within  the  limits  of  the  Universe  as  it  now  exists.  They 
are  only  admissible  in  the  relation  in  which  the  several  parts  of  the  Universe 
stand  to  each  other  ;  but  the  purpose  of  the  Universe  as  a  whole  cannot  be 
accounted  for.-    It  is  simply  an  emanation  from  the  will  of  God. 

Regarding  the  belief  in  Providence,  Maimonides  enumerates  the  following 
five  opihions  : — i.  There  is  no  Providence;  e'verything  is  subject  to  chance; 
2.  Only  a  part  of  the  Universe  is  governed  by  Providence,  viz.,  the  spheres,  the 
species,  and  such  individual  beings  as  possess  the  power  of  perpetuating  their 
existence  (e.g.,  the  stars)  ;  the  rest — that  is,  the  sublunary  world — is  left  to  mere 
chance.  3.  Everthing  is  predetermined  ;  according  to  this  theory,  revealed 
Law  is  inconceivable.  4.  Providence  assigns  its  blessings  to  all  creatures, 
according  to  their  merits  ;  accordingly,  all  beings,  even  the  lowest  animals,  if 
innocently  injured  or  killed,  receive  compensation  in  a  future  life.  5.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  belief,  all  living  beings  are  endowed  with  free-will  ;  God  is 
just,  and  the  destiny  of  man  depends  on  his  merits.  Maimonides  denies  the 
existence  of  trials  inflicted  by  Divine  love,  i.e.  afflictions  which  befall  man,  not 
as  punishments  of  sin,  but  as  means  to  procure  for  him  a  reward  in  times  to 
come.  Maimonides  also  rejects  the  notion  that  God  ordains  special  temptation. 
The  Biblical  account,  according  to  which  God  tempts  men,  "  to  know  what  is 
in  their  hearts,"  must  not  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense  ;  it  merely  states  that  God 
made  the  virtues  of  certain  people  known  to  their  fellowmen  in  order  that  their 
good  example  should  be  followed.  Of  all  creatures  man  alone  enjoys  the  especial 
care  of  Providence  :  because  the  acts  of  Providence  are  identical  with  certain 
influences  [shefa')  which  the  Active  Intellect  brings  to  bear  upon  the  human 
intellect ;  their  eflcct  upon  man  varies  according  to  his  physical,  moral,  and 
intellectual  condition  ;  irrational  beings,  however,  cannot  be  aftectcd  by  these 


Iviu  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

influences.  If  we  cannot  in  each  individual  case  see  how  these  principles  are 
applied,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  tliat  God's  wisdom  is  far  above  that  of  man. 
The  author  seems  to  have  ielt  that  his  theory  has  its  weak  points,  for  he  intro- 
duces it  as  follows  : — "  My  theory  is  not  established  by  demonstrative  proof  ;  it 
is  based  on  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  it  is  less  subject  to  refutation  than  any 
of  the  theories  previously  mentioned." 

Providence  implies  Omniscience,  and  men  who  deny  this,  eo  ipso,  have  no 
belief  in  Providence.  Some  are  unable  to  reconcile  the  fate  of  man  with  Divine 
Justice,  and  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  God  takes  no  notice  whatever  of  the 
events  which  occur  on  earth.  Others  believe  that  God,  being  an  absolute  Unity, 
cannot  possess  a  knowledge  of  a  multitude  of  things,  or  of  things  that  do  not 
yet  exist,  or  the  number  of  which  is  infinite.  These  objections,  which  are  based 
on  the  nature  of  man's  perception,  are  illogical  ;  for  God's  knowledge  cannot 
be  compared  to  that  of  man  ;  it  is  identical  with  His  essence.  Even  the  Attri- 
butists,  who  assume  that  God's  knowledge  is  different  from  His  essence,  hold 
that  it  is  distinguished  from  man's  knowledge  in  the  following  five  points  : — 
I.  It  is  one,  although  it  embraces  a  plurality.  2.  It  includes  even  such  things 
as  do  not  yet  exist.  3.  It  includes  things  which  are  infinite  in  number.  4.  It 
does  not  change  when  new  objects  of  perception  present  themselves.  5.  It  does 
not  determine  the  course  of  events. — However  difficult  this  theory  may  appear 
to  human  comprehension,  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  Isaiah  (Iv.  8)  : 
"  Your  thoughts  are  not  My  thoughts,  and  your  ways  are  not  My  ways." 
According  to  Maimonides,  the  difficulty  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  God 
is  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  His  knowledge  of  the  things  is  not  dependent 
on  their  existence  ;  while  the  knowledge  of  man  is  solely  dependent  on  the  objects 
which  come  under  his  cognition. 

According  to  Maimonides,  the  book  of  Job  illustrates  the  several  views  which 
have  been  mentioned  above.  Satan,  that  is,  the  material  element  in  human 
existence,  is  described  as  the  cause  of  Job's  sufferings.  Job  at  first  believed  that 
man's  happiness  depends  on  riches,  health,  and  children  ;  being  deprived  of 
these  sources  of  happiness,  he  conceived  the  notion  that  Providence  is  indifferent 
to  the  fate  of  mortal  beings.  After  a  careful  study  of  natural  phenomena,  he 
rejected  this  opinion.  Eliphaz  held  that  all  misfortunes  of  man  serve  as  punish- 
ments of  past  sins.  Bildad,  the  second  friend  of  Job,  admitted  the  existence  of 
those  afflictions  which  Divine  love  decrees  in  order  that  the  patient  sufferer 
may  be  fitted  to  receive  a  bountiful  reward.  Zophar,  the  third  friend  of  Job, 
declared  that  the  ways  of  God  are  beyond  human  comprehension  ;  there  is 
but  one  explanation  assignable  to  all  Divine  acts,  namely  :  Such  is  His  Will. 
Elihu  gives  a  fuller  development  to  this  idea  ;  he  says  that  such  evils  as  befell 
Job  may  be  remedied  once  or  twice,  but  the  course  of  nature  is  not  altogether 
reversed.  It  is  true  that  by  prophecy  a  clearer  insight  into  the  ways  of  God 
can  be  obtained,  but  there  are  only  few  who  arrive  at  that  exalted  intellectual 
degree,  whilst  the  majority  of  men  must  content  themselves  with  acquiring  a 
knowledge  of  God  through  the  study  of  nature.  Such  a  study  leads  man  to 
the  conviction  that  his  understanding  cannot  fathom  the  secrets  of  nature  and 
the  wisdom  of  Divine  Providence. 

The  concluding  section  of  the  Third  Part  treats  of  the  purpose  of  the  Divine 
precepts.  In  the  Pentateuch  they  are  described  as  the  means  of  acquiring 
wisdom,  enduring  happiness,  and  also  bodily  comfort  (ch.  xxxi.).  Generally  a 
distinction  is  made  between  "hukkim"  ("statutes")  and  mishpatim  ("judg- 
ments ").  The  object  of  the  latter  is,  on  the  whole,  known,  but  the  hukkim 
are  considered  as  tests  of  man's  obedience  ;  no  reason  is  given  why  they  have 
been  enacted.  Maimonides  rejects  this  distinction  ;  he  states  that  all  precepts 
are  the  result  of  wisdom  and  design,  that  all  contribute  to  the  welfare  of  man- 


GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  lix 

kind,  although  with  regard  to  the  huHim  this  is  less  obvious.  The  author 
draws  another  line  of  distinction  between  the  general  principles  and  the  details 
of  rules.  For  the  selection  and  the  introduction  of  the  latter  there  is  but  one 
reason,  viz.  :  "  Such  is  the  will  of  God." 

The  laws  are  intended  to  promote  man's  perfection  ;  they  improve  both  his 
mental  and  his  physical  condition  ;  the  former  in  so  far  as  they  lead  him  to  the 
acquisition  of  true  knowledge,  the  latter  through  the  training  of  his  moral  and 
social  faculties.  Each  law  thus  imparts  knowledge,  improves  the  moral  con- 
dition of  man,  or  conduces  to  the  well-being  of  society.  Many  revealed  laws 
help  to  enlighten  man,  and  to  correct  false  opinions.  This  object  is  not 
always  clearly  announced.  God  in  His  wisdom  sometimes  withheld  from  the 
knowledge  of  man  the  purpose  of  commandments  and  actions.  There  are 
other  precepts  which  tend  to  restrain  man's  passions  and  desires.  If  the  same 
end  is  occasionally  attainable  by  other  means,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
Divine  laws  are  adapted  to  the  ordinary  mental  and  emotional  state  of  man,  and 
not  to  exceptional  circumstances.  In  this  work,  as  in  the  Tad  ha-haz.akah, 
Maimonides  divides  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  into  fourteen  groups,  and  in 
each  group  he  discusses  the  principal  and  the  special  object  of  the  laws  included 
in  it. 

In  addition  to  the  legislative  contents,  the  Bible  includes  historical  informa- 
tion ;  and  Maimonides,  in  briefly  reviewing  the  Biblical  narratives,  shows  that 
these  are  likewise  intended  to  improve  man's  physical,  moral,  and  intellectual 
condition.  "It  is  not  a  vain  thing  for  you  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  47),  and  when  it 
proves  vain  to   anyone,  it  is  his  own  fault. 

In  the  final  chapters  the  author  describes  the  several  degrees  of  human  per- 
fection, from  the  sinners  who  have  turned  from  the  right  path  to  the  best  of 
men,  who  in  all  their  thoughts  and  acts  cling  to  the  Most  Perfect  Being,  who 
aspire  after  the  greatest  possible  knowledge  of  God,  and  strive  to  serve  their 
Maker  in  the  practice  of  "loving-kindness,  righteousness,  and  justice."  This 
degree  of  human  perfection  can  only  be  attained  by  those  who  never  forget  the 
presence  of  the  Almighty,  and  remain  firm  in  their  fear  and  love  of  God. 
These  servants  of  the  Most  High  inherit  the  choicest  of  human  blessings  ; 
they  are  endowed  with  wisdom  :  they  are  godlike  beings. 


INTRODUCTION 

[Lftier  of  the  Author  to  his  Pupil,  R.  Joseph  Ibn  Jknin.] 

In  the  name  of  God,  Lord  of  the  Universe. 

To  R.  Joseph  (may  God  protect  him  !),  son  of  R.  Jehudah  (may  his  repose 

be  in  Paradise  !)  : — 
"  My  dear  pupil,  ever  since  you  resolved  to  come  to  me,  from  a  distant 
country,  and  to  study  under  my  direction,  I  thought  highly  of  your  thirst 
for  knowledge,  and  your  fondness  for  speculative  pursuits,  which  found  ex- 
pression in  your  poems.  I  refer  to  the  time  when  I  received  your  writings 
in  prose  and  verse  from  Alexandria.  I  was  then  not  yet  able  to  test  your 
powers  of  apprehension,  and  I  thought  that  your  desire  might  possibly  exceed 
your  capacity.  But  when  you  had  gone  with  me  through  a  course  of  astro- 
nomy, after  having  completed  the  [other]  elementary  studies  which  are 
indispensable  for  the  understanding  of  that  science,  I  was  still  more  gratified 
by  the  acuteness  and  the  quickness  of  your  apprehension.  Observing  your 
great  fondness  for  mathematics,  I  let  you  study  them  more  deeply,  for  I  felt 
sure  of  your  ultimate  success.  Afterwards,  when  I  took  you  through  a  course 
of  logic,  I  found  that  my  great  expectations  of  you  were  confirmed,  and  I 
considered  you  fit  to  receive  from  me  an  exposition  of  the  esoteric  ideas  con- 
tained in  the  prophetic  books,  that  you  might  understand  them  as  they  are 
understood  by  men  of  culture.  When  I  commenced  by  way  of  hints,  I 
noticed  that  you  desired  additional  explanation,  urging  me  to  expound  some 
metaphysical  problems  ;  to  teach  you  the  system  of  the  Mutakallemim  ;  to 
tell  you  whether  their  arguments  were  based  on  logical  proof ;  and  if  not, 
what  their  method  was.  I  perceived  that  you  had  acquired  some  knowledge 
in  those  matters  from  others,  and  that  you  were  perplexed  and  bewildered  ; 
yet  you  sought  to  find  out  a  solution  to  your  difficulty.  I  urged  you  to  desist 
from  this  pursuit,  and  enjoined  you  to  continue  your  studies  systematically  ; 
for  my  object  was  that  the  truth  should  present  itself  in  connected  order, 
and  that  you  should  not  hit  upon  it  by  mere  chance.  Whilst  you  studied 
with  me  I  never  refused  to  explain  difficult  verses  in  the  Bible  or  passages  in 
rabbinical  literature  which  we  happened  to  meet.  When,  by  the  will  of 
God,  we  parted,  and  you  went  your  way,  our  discussions  aroused  in  me  a 
resolution  which  had  long  been  dormant.  Your  absence  has  prompted  me 
to  compose  this  treatise  for  you  and  for  those  who  are  like  you,  however  few 
they  may  be.  I  have  divided  it  into  chapters,  each  of  which  shall  be  sent  to 
you  as  soon  as  it  is  completed.     Farewell !  " 

[Prefatory  Remarks.] 

"  Cause  me  to  know  the  way  wherein  I  should  walk,  for  I  lift  up  my  soul  unto  Thee." 

(Psalm  cxliii.  8.) 

"  Unto  you,  O  men,  I  call,  and  my  voice  is  to  the  sons  of  men."      (Prov.  viii.  4.) 
"Bow  down  thine  ear  and  hear  the  words   of  the  wise,  and  apply  thine  heart  unto  my 

knowledge."      (Prov.  xxii.  17.) 

^  B 


2  INTRODUCTION 

My  primary  object  in  this  work  is  to  explain  certain  words  occurring  in 
the  prophetic  books.  Of  these  some  are  homonyms,  and  of  their  several 
meanings  the  ignorant  choose  the  wrong  ones  ;  other  terms  which  are  em- 
ployed in  a  figurative  sense  are  erroneously  taken  by  such  persons  in  their 
primary  signification.  There  are  also  hybrid  terms,  denoting  things  which 
are  of  the  same  class  from  one  point  of  view  and  of  a  different  class  from 
another.  It  is  not  here  intended  to  explain  all  these  expressions  to  the  un- 
lettered or  to  mere  tyros,  a  previous  knowledge  of  Logic  and  Natural  Philo- 
sophy being  indispensable,  or  to  those  who  confine  their  attention  to  the 
study  of  our  holy^aw,  I  mean  the  study  of  the  canonical  law  alone  ;  for  the 
true  knowledge  of  the  Torah  is  the  special  aim  of  this  and  similar  works. 

The  object  of  this  treatise  is  to  enlighten  a  religious  man  who  has  been 
trained  to  believe  in  the  truth  of  our  holy  Law,  who  conscientiously  fulfils 
his  moral  and  religious  duties,  and  at  the  same  time  has  been  successful  in 
his  philosophical  studies.  Human  reason  has  attracted  him  to  abide  within 
its  sphere  ;  and  he  finds  it  difficult  to  accept  as  correct  the  teaching  based 
on  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Law,  and  especially  that  which  he  himself 
or  others  derived  from  those  homonymous,  metaphorical,  or  hybrid  expres- 
sions. Hence  he  is  lost  in  perplexity  and  anxiety.  If  he  be  guided  solely  by 
reason,  and  renounce  his  previous  views  which  are  based  on  those  expressions, 
he  would  consider  that  he  had  rejected  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Law  ;  and  even  if  he  retains  the  opinions  which  were  derived  from  those  ex- 
pressions, and  if,  instead  of  following  his  reason,  he  abandon  its  guidance 
altogether,  it  would  still  appear  that  his  religious  convictions  had  suffered  loss 
and  injury.  For  he  would  then  be  left  with  those  errors  which  give  rise  to 
fear  and  anxiety,  constant  grief  and  great  perplexity. 

This  work  has  also  a  second  object  in  view.  It  seeks  to  explain  certain 
obscure  figures  which  occur  in  the  Prophets,  and  are  not  distinctly  char- 
acterized as  being  figures.  Ignorant  and  superficial  readers  take  them-in  a 
literal,  not  in  a  figurative  sense.  Even  well  informed  persons  are  bewildered 
if  they  understand  these  passages  in  their  literal  signification,  but  they  are 
entirely  relieved  of  their  perplexity  when  we  explain  the  figure,  or  merely 
suggest  that  the  terms  are  figurative.  For  this  reason  I  have  called  this  book 
Guide  for  the  Perplexed. 

I  do  not  presume  to  think  that  this  treatise  settles  every  doubt  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  understand  it,  but  I  maintain  that  it  settles  the  greater  part  of 
their  difficulties.  No  intelligent  man  will  require  and  expect  that  on  intro- 
ducing any  subject  I  shall  completely  exhaust  it ;  or  that  on  commencing 
the  exposition  of  a  figure  I  shall  fully  explain  all  its  parts.  Such  a  course 
could  not  be  followed  by  a  teacher  in  a  viva  voce  exposition,  much  less  by  an 
author  in  writing  a  book,  without  becoming  a  target  for  every  foolish  con- 
ceited person  to  discharge  the  arrows  of  folly  at  him.  Some  general  prin- 
ciples bearing  upon  this  point  have  been  fully  discussed  in  our  works  on  the 
Talmud,  and  we  have  there  called  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  many  themes 
of  this  kind.  We  also  stated  {Mishneh  torah,  I.  ii.  12,  and  iv.  10)  that  the 
expression  Ma'ase  Bereshit  (Account  of  the  Creation)  signified  "  Natu- 
ral Science,"  and  Ma'aseh  Mercabah  ("  Description  of  the  Chariot ") 
Metaphysics,  and  we  explained  the  force  of  the  Rabbinical  dictum,  "  The 
Ma'aseh  Mercabah   must  not  be  fully  expounded  even  in  the  presence  of  a 


INTFWDUCriON  3 

single  student,  unless  he  be  wise  and  able  to  reason  for  himself,  and  even  then 
you  should  merely  acquaint  him  with  the  heads  of  the  different  sections  of 
the  subject.  (Habyl.  'I'alm.  JJagigah,  fol.  ii  b).  You  must,  therefore,  not 
expect  from  me  more  than  such  heads.  And  even  these  have  not  been 
methodically  and  systematically  arranged  in  this  work,  but  have  been,  on  the 
contrary,  scattered,  and  are  interspersed  with  other  topics  which  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  explain.  My  object  in  adopting  this  arrangement  is  that  the 
truths  should  be  at  one  time  apparent,  and  at  another  time  concealed.  Thus 
we  shall  not  be  in  opposition  to  the  Divine  Will  (from  which  it  is  wrong  to 
deviate)  which  has  withheld  from  the  multitude  the  truths  required  for  the 
knowledge  of  God,  according  to  the  words,  "  The  secret  of  the  Lord  is  with 
them  that  fear  Him  "     (Ps.  xxv.  14). 

Know  that  also  in  Natural  Science  there  are  topics  which  are  not  to  be 
fully  explained.  Our  Sages  laid  down  the  rule,  "  The  Ma'aseh  Bere- 
shith  must  not  be  expounded  in  the  presence  of  two."  If  an  author  were  to 
explain  these  principles  in  writing,  it  would  be  equal  to  expounding  them 
unto  thousands  of  men.  For  this  reason  the  prophets  treat  these  subjects 
in  figures,  and  our  Sages,  imitating  the  method  of  Scripture,  speak  of  them  in 
metaphors  and  allegories  ;  because  there  is  a  close  affinity  between  these  sub- 
jects and  metaphysics,  and  indeed  they  form  part  of  its  mysteries.  Do  not 
imagine  that  these  most  difficult  problems  can  be  thoroughly  understood  by 
any  one  of  us.  This  is  not  the  case.  At  times  the  truth  shines  so  brilliantly 
that  we  perceive  it  as  clear  as  day.  Our  nature  and  habit  then  draw  a  veil 
over  our  perception,  and  we  return  to  a  darkness  almost  as  dense  as  before. 
We  are  like  those  who,  though  beholding  frequent  flashes  of  lightning,  still 
find  themselves  in  the  thickest  darkness  of  the  night.  On  some  the  lightning 
flashes  in  rapid  succession,  and  they  seem  to  be  in  continuous  light,  and 
their  night  is  as  clear  as  the  day.  This  was  the  degree  of  prophetic  excellence 
attained  by  (Moses)  tiie  greatest  of  prophets,  to  whom  God  said,  "  But 
as  for  thee,  stand  thou  here  by  Me  "  (Deut.  v.  31),  and  of  whom  it  is  written 
"  the  skin  of  his  face  shone,"  etc.  (Exod.  xxxiv.  29).  [Some  perceive  the 
prophetic  flash  at  long  intervals  ;  this  is  the  degree  of  most  prophets.]  By 
others  only  once  during  the  whole  night  is  a  flash  of  lightning  perceived. 
This  is  the  case  with  those  of  whom  we  are  informed,  "  They  prophesied,  and 
did  not  prophesy  again  "  (Num.  xi.  25).  There  are  some  to  whom  the  flashes 
of  lightning  appear  with  varying  intervals;  others  are  in  the  condition 
of  men,  whose  darkness  is  illumined  not  by  lightning,  but  by  some  kind  of 
crystal  or  similar  stone,  or  other  substances  that  possess  the  property  of 
shining  during  the  night ;  and  to  them  even  this  small  amount  of  light  is 
not  continuous,  but  now  it  shines  and  now  it  vanishes,  as  if  it  were  "  the 
flame  of  the  rotating  sword." 

The  degrees  in  the  perfection  of  men  vary  according  to  these  distinctions. 
Concerning  those  who  never  beheld  the  light  even  for  one  day,  but  walk  in 
continual  darkness,  it  is  written,  "  They  know  not,  neither  will  they  under- 
stand ;  they  walk  on  in  darkness  "  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  5).  Truth,  in  spite  of  all  its 
powerful  manifestations,  is  completely  withheld  from  them,  and  the  follow- 
ing words  of  Scripture  may  be  applied  to  them,  "  And  now  men  see  not  the 
light  which  is  bright  in  the  skies  "  (Job  xxxvii.  21).  They  are  the  multitude 
of  ordinary  men  ;  there  is  no  need  to  notice  them  in  this  treatise. 


4  INTRODUCTION 

You  must  kn  iw  that  if  a  person,  who  has  attained  a  certain  degree  of  per- 
fection, wishes  to  impart  to  others,  cither  orally  or  in  writing,  any  portion 
of  the  knowledge  which  he  has  acquired  of  these  subjects,  he  is  utterly  unable 
to  be  as  systematic  and  explicit  as  he  could  be  in  a  science  of  which  the  method 
is  well  known.  The  same  difficulties  which  he  encountered  when  investi- 
gating the  subject  for  himself  will  attend  him  when  endeavouring  to  in- 
struct others ;  viz.,  at  one  time  the  explanation  will  appear  lucid,  at  another 
time,  obscure  ;  this  property  of  the  subject  appears  to  remain  the  same  both 
to  the  advanced  scholar  and  to  the  beginner.  For  this  reason,  great  theo- 
logical scholars  gave  instruction  in  all  such  matters  only  by  means  of  meta- 
phors and  allegories.  They  frequently  employed  them  in  forms  varying 
more  or  less  essentially.  In  most  cases  they  placed  the  lesson  to  be  illus- 
trated at  the  beginning,  or  in  the  middle,  or  at  the  end  of  the  simile.  When 
they  could  find  no  simile  which  from  beginning  to  end  corresponded  to  the 
idea  which  was  to  be  illustrated,  they  divided  the  subject  of  the  lesson,  al- 
though in  itself  one  whole,  into  different  parts,  and  expressed  each  by  a 
separate  figure.  Still  more  obscure  are  those  instances  in  which  one  simile 
is  employed  to  illustrate  many  subjects,  the  beginning  of  the  simile  repre- 
senting one  thing,  the  end  another.  Sometimes  the  whole  metaphor  may 
refer  to  two  cognate  subjects  in  the  same  branch  of  knowledge. 

If  we  were  to  teach  in  these  disciplines,  without  the  use  of  parables  and 
figures,  we  should  be  compelled  to  resort  to  expressions  both  profound  and 
transcendental,  and  by  no  means  more  intelligible  than  metaphors  and  sim- 
iles ;  as  though  the  wise  and  learned  were  drawn  into  this  course  by  the 
Divine  Will,  in  the  same  way  as  they  are  compelled  to  follow  the  laws  of 
nature  in  matters  relating  to  the  body.  You  are  no  doubt  aware  that  the 
Almighty,  desiring  to  lead  us  to  perfection  and  to  improve  our  state  of 
society,  has  revealed  to  us  laws  which  are  to  regulate  our  actions.  These 
laws,  however,  presuppose  an  advanced  state  of  intellectual  culture.  We 
must  first  form  a  conception  of  the  Existence  of  the  Creator  according  to  our 
capabilities  ;  that  is,  we  must  have  a  knowledge  of  Metaphysics.  But  this 
discipline  can  only  be  approached  after  the  study  of  Physics ;  for  the  science 
of  Physics  borders  on  Metaphysics,  and  must  even  precede  it  in  the  course  of 
our  studies,  as  is  clear  to  all  who  are  familiar  with  these  questions.  'I  herefore 
the  Almighty  commenced  Holy  Writ  with  the  description  of  the  Creation, 
that  is,  with  Physical  Science  ;  the  subject  being  on  the  one  hand  most 
weighty  and  important,  and  on  the  other  hand  our  means  of  fully  compre- 
hending those  great  problems  being  limited.  He  described  those  profound 
truths,  which  His  Divine  Wisdom  found  it  necessary  to  communicate  to  us, 
in  allegorical,  figurative,  and  metaphorical  language.  Our  Sages  have  said 
(Yemen  Midrash  on  Gen.  i.  i),  "  It  is  impossible  to  give  a  full  account  of  the 
Creation  to  man.  Therefore  Scripture  simply  tells  us.  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  "  (Gen.  i.  l).  Thus  they  have  suggested 
that  this  subject  is  a  deep  mystery,  and  in  the  words  of  Solomon,  "  Far  off 
and  exceedingly  deep,  who  can  find  it  out  ?  "  (Eccles.  vii.  24).  It  has  been 
treated  in  metaphors  in  order  that  the  uneducated  may  comprehend  it 
according  to  the  measure  of  their  faculties  and  the  feebleness  of  their  appre- 
hension, while  educated  persons  may  take  it  in  a  different  sense.  In  our 
commentary  on  the  Mishnah  we  stated  our  intention  to  explain  difficult 


INTRODUCTION  5 

problems  in  the  Book  on  Prophecy  and  in  the  Book  of  Harmony.  In  the 
latter  we  intended  to  examine  all  the  passages  in  the  Midrash  which,  if  taken 
literally,  appear  to  be  inconsistent  with  truth  and  common  sense,  and  must 
therefore  be  taken  figuratively.  Many  years  have  elapsed  since  I  first  com- 
menced those  works.  I  had  proceeded  but  a  short  way  when  I  became 
dissatisfied  with  my  original  plan.  For  I  observed  that  by  expounding  these 
passages  by  means  of  allegorical  and  mystical  terms,  we  do  not  explain  any- 
thing, but  merely  substitute  one  thing  for  another  of  the  same  nature,  whilst 
in  explaining  them,  fully  our  efforts  would  displease  most  people  ;  and  my 
sole  object  in  planning  to  write  those  books  was  to  make  the  contents  of 
Midrashim  and  the  exoteric  lessons  of  the  prophecies  intelligible  to  every- 
body. We  have  further  noticed  that  when  an  ill-informed  Theologian 
reads  these  Midrashim,  he  will  find  no  difficulty  ;  for  possessing  no  know- 
ledge of  the  properties  of  things,  he  will  not  reject  statements  which  involve 
impossibilities.  When,  however,  a  person  who  is  both  religious  and  well 
educated  reads  them,  he  cannot  escape  the  following  dilemma  :  either  he 
takes  them  literally,  and  questions  the  abilities  of  the  author  and  the  sound- 
ness of  his  mind — doing  thereby  nothing  which  is  opposed  to  the  principles 
of  our  faith, — or  he  will  acquiesce  in  assuming  that  the  passages  in  question 
have  some  secret  meaning,  and  he  will  continue  to  hold  the  author  in  high 
estimation  whether  he  understood  the  allegory  or  not.  As  regards  prophecy 
in  its  various  degrees  and  the  different  metaphors  used  in  the  prophetic  books, 
we  shall  give  in  the  present  work  an  explanation,  according  to  a  different 
method.  Guided  by  these  considerations  I  have  refrained  from  writing 
those  two  books  as  I  had  previously  intended.  In  my  larger  work,  the  Mish- 
nah  Tjrah,  I  have  contented  myself  with  briefly  stating  the  principles  of  our 
faith  and  its  fundamental  truths,  together  with  such  hints  as  approach  a  clear 
exposition.  In  this  work,  however,  I  address  those  who  have  studied  philo- 
sophy and  have  acquired  sound  knowledge,  and  who  while  firm  in  religious 
matters  are  perplexed  and  bewildered  on  account  of  the  ambiguous  and 
figurative  expressions  employed  in  the  holy  writings.  Some  chapters  may 
be  found  in  this  work  which  contain  no  reference  whatever  to  homonyms. 
Such  chapters  will  serve  as  an  introduction  to  others  ;  they  will  contain  some 
reference  to  the  signification  of  a  homonym  which  I  do  not  wish  to  men- 
tion in  that  place,  or  explain  some  figure  ;  point  out  that  a  certain  expression 
is  a  figure  ;  treat  of  difficult  passages  generally  misunderstood  in  consequence 
of  the  homonymy  they  include,  or  because  the  simile  they  contain  is  taken 
in  place  of  that  which  it  represents,  and  vice  versa. 

Having  spoken  of  similes,  I  proceed  to  make  the  following  remark  : — The 
key  to  the  understanding  and  to  the  full  comprehension  of  all  that  the 
Prophets  have  said  is  found  in  the  knowledge  of  the  figures,  their  general 
ideas,  and  the  meaning  of  each  word  they  contain.     You  know  the  verse : — 

"  I  have  also  spoken  in  similes  by  the  Prophets  "  (Hosea  xii.  lo)  ;  and  also 
the  verse,  "  Put  forth  a  riddle  and  speak  a  parable  "  (Ezek.  xvii.  2).  And 
because  the  Prophets  continually  employ  figures,  Ezekiel  said,  "  Does  He 
not  speak  parables  ?  "  (xxi.  5).  Again,  Solomon  begins  his  book  of  Proverbs 
with  the  words,  "  To  understand  a  proverb  and  figurative  speech,  the  words 
of  the  wise  and  their  dark  sayings  "  (Prov.  i.  6)  ;  and  we  read  in  Midrash,  Shir 
ha-shirim  Rabba,  i.  l)  ;  "  To  what  were  the  words  of  the  Law  to  be  com- 


6  INTRODUCTION 

pared  before  the  time  of  Solomon  ?     To  a  well  the  waters  of  which  are  at  a 
great  depth,  and  though  cool  and  fresh,  yet  no  man  could  drink  of  them. 
A  clever  man  joined  cord  with  cord,  and  rope  with  rope,  and  drew  up  and 
drank.     So  Solomon  went  from  figure  to  figure,  and  from  subject  to  sub- 
ject, till  he  obtained  the  true  sense  of  the  Law."     So  far  go  the  words  of  our 
Sages.     I  do  not  believe  that  any  intelligent  man  thinks  that  "  the  words  of 
the  Law  "  mentioned  here  as  requiring  the  application  of  figures  in  order  to 
be  understood,  can  refer  to  the  rules  for  building  tabernacles,  for  preparing 
the  lulab,  or  for  the  four  kinds  of  trustees.     What  is  really  meant  is  the  appre- 
hension of  profound  and  difficult  subjects,  concerning  which  our  Sages  said, 
"  If  a  man  loses  in  his  house  a  sela,  or  a  pearl,  he  can  find  it  by  lighting  a  taper 
worth  only  one  issar.     Thus  the  parables  in  themselves  are  of  no  great  value, 
but  through  them  the  words  of  the  holy  Law  are  rendered  intelligible." 
These  likewise  are  the  words  of  our  Sages  ;   consider  well  their  statement, 
that  the  deeper  sense  of  the  words  of  the  holy  Law  are  pearls,  and  the  literal 
acceptation  of  a  figure  is  of  no  value  in  itself.     They  compare  the  hidden 
meaning  included  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  simile  to  a  pearl  lost  in  a  dark 
room,  which  is  full  of  furniture.     It  is  certain  that  the  pearl  is  in  the  room, 
but  the  man  can  neither  see  it  nor  know  where  it  lies.     It  is  just  as  if  tlie  pearl 
were  no  longer  in  his  possession,  for,  as  has  been  stated,  it  affords  him  no 
benefit  whatever  until  he  kindles  a  light.     The  same  is  the  case  with  the  com- 
prehension of  that  which  the  simile  represents.     The  wise  king  said,  "  A  word 
fitly  spoken  is  like  apples  of  gold  in  vessels  of  silver  "  (Prov.  xxv.  ll).     Hear 
the  explanation  of  what  he  said  : — The  word  maskiyoth,  the  Hebrew  equi- 
valent for  "  vessels,"  denotes  "  filigree  network  " — i.e.,  things  in  which  there 
are  very  small  apertures,  such  as  are  frequently  wrought  by  silversmiths. 
They  are  called  in  Hebrew  maskiyyoth  (lit.  "  transpicuous,"  from  the  verb 
sakah,  "  he  saw,"  a  root  which  occurs  also  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  Gen, 
xxvi.  8),  because  the  eye  penetrates  through  them.     Thus  Solomon  meant 
to  say,  "  Just  as  apples  of  gold  in  silver  filigree  with  small  apertures,  so  is  a 
word  fitly  spoken." 

See  how  beautifully  the  conditions  of  a  good  simile  are  described  in  this 
figure  !  It  shows  that  in  every  word  which  has  a  double  sense,  a  literal  one 
and  a  figurative  one,  the  plain  meaning  must  be  as  valuable  as  silver,  and  the 
hidden  meaning  still  more  precious  ;  so  that  the  figurative  meaning  bears 
the  same  relation  to  the  literal  one  as  gold  to  silver.  It  is  further  necessary 
that  the  plain  sense  of  the  phrase  shall  give  to  those  who  consider  it  some 
notion  of  that  which  the  figure  represents.  Just  as  a  golden  apple  overlaid 
with  a  network  of  silver,  when  seen  at  a  distance,  or  looked  at  superficially, 
is  mistaken  for  a  silver  apple,  but  when  a  keen-sighted  person  looks  at  the 
object  well,  he  will  find  what  is  within,  and  see  that  the  apple  is  gold.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  the  figures  employed  by  prophets.  Taken  literally, 
such  expressions  contain  wisdom  useful  for  many  purposes,  among  others, 
for  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  society  ;  e.g.,  the  Proverbs  (of  Solo- 
mon), and  similar  sayings  in  their  literal  sense.  Their  hidden  meaning, 
however,  is  profound  wisdom,  conducive  to  the  recognition  of  real  truth. 

Know  that  the  figures  employed  by  prophets  are  of  two  kinds  :  first,  where 
every  word  which  occurs  in  the  simile  represents  a  certain  idea  ;  and  secondly, 
where   the  simile,   as  a  whole,   represents  a  general   idea,   but  has  a  great 


INTRODUCTION  7 

many  points  which  have  no  reference  whatever  to  that  idea  ;  they  are  simply 
required  to  give  to  the  simile  its  proper  form  and  order,  or  better  to  conceal 
the  idea  ;  the  simile  is  therefore  continued  as  far  as  necessary,  according  to 
its  literal  sense.     Consider  this  well. 

An  example  of  the  first  class  of  prophetic  figures  is  to  be  found  in  Genesis  : 
— "  And,  behold,  a  ladder  set  up  on  the  earth,  and  the  top  of  it  reached  to 
heaven  ;  and,  behold,  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending  on  it  " 
(Gen.  xxviii.  12).  The  word  "  ladder  "  refers  to  one  idea  ;  "  set  up  on  the 
earth  "  to  another ;  "  and  the  top  of  it  reached  to  heaven  "  to  a  third  ; 
"  angels  of  God  "  to  a  fourth  ;  "  ascending  "  to  a  fifth  ;  "  descending  "  to 
a  sixth  ;  "  the  Lord  stood  above  it  "  (ver.  13)  to  a  seventh.  Every  word  in 
this  figure  introduces  a  fresh  element  into  the  idea  represented  by  the  figure. 

An  example  of  the  second  class  of  prophetic  figures  is  found  in  Proverbs 
(vii.  6-26)  : — "  For  at  the  window  of  my  house  I  looked  through  my  case- 
ment, and  beheld  among  the  simple  ones ;  I  discerned  among  the  youths  a 
young  man  void  of  understanding,  passing  through  the  street  near  her  corner  : 
and  he  went  the  way  to  her  house,  in  the  twilight,  in  the  evening,  in  the  black 
and  dark  night  :  and,  behold,  there  met  him  a  woman  with  the  attire  of  a 
harlot,  and  subtil  of  heart.  (She  is  loud  and  stubborn  ;  her  feet  abide  not 
in  her  house  :  now  she  is  without,  now  in  the  streets,  and  lieth  in  wait  in 
every  corner.)  So  she  caught  him,  and  kissed  him,  and  with  an  impudent 
face  said  unto  him,  I  have  peace  offerings  with  me  ;  this  day  have  I  paid  my 
vows.  Therefore  came  I  forth  to  meet  thee,  diligently  to  seek  thy  face,  and 
I  have  found  thee.  I  have  decked  my  bed  with  coverings  of  tapestry,  with 
striped  cloths  of  the  yarn  of  Egypt.  I  have  perfumed  my  bed  with  myrrh, 
aloes,  and  cinnamon.  Come,  let  us  take  our  fill  of  love  until  the  morning  : 
let  us  solace  ourselves  with  loves.  For  the  goodman  is  not  at  home,  he  is 
gone  a  long  journey  :  he  hath  taken  a  bag  of  money  with  him,  and  will  come 
home  at  the  day  appointed.  With  her  much  fair  speech  she  caused  him  to 
yield,  with  the  flattering  of  her  lips  she  forced  him.  He  goeth  after  her 
straightway,  as  an  ox  goeth  to  the  slaughter,  or  as  fetters  to  the  correction  of 
a  fool :  till  a  dart  strike  through  his  liver  ;  as  a  bird  hasteth  to  the  snare, 
and  knoweth  not  that  it  is  for  his  life.  Hearken  unto  me  now  therefore,  O 
ye  children,  and  attend  to  the  words  of  my  mouth.  Let  not  thine  heart  de- 
cline to  her  ways,  go  not  astray  in  her  paths.  For  she  hath  cast  down  many 
wounded  :  yea,  many  strong  men  have  been  slain  by  her." 

The  general  principle  expounded  in  all  these  verses  is  to  abstain  from 
excessive  indulgence  in  bodily  pleasures.  The  author  compares  the  body, 
which  is  the  source  of  all  sensual  pleasures,  to  a  married  woman  who  at  the 
same  time  is  a  harlot.  And  this  figure  he  has  taken  as  the  basis  of  his  entire 
book.  We  shall  hereafter  show  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  in  comparing  sensual 
pleasures  to  an  adulterous  harlot.  We  shall  explain  how  aptly  he  concludes 
that  work  with  the  praises  of  a  faitliful  wife  who  devotes  herself  to  the  welfare 
of  her  husband  and  of  her  household.  All  obstacles  which  prevent  man  from 
attaining  his  highest  aim  in  life,  all  the  deficiencies  in  the  character  of  man, 
all  his  evil  propensities,  are  to  be  traced  to  the  body  alone.  This  will  be  ex- 
plained later  on.  The  predominant  idea  running  throughout  the  figure  is, 
that  man  shall  not  be  entirely  guided  by  his  animal,  or  material  nature  ;  for 
the  material  substance  of  man  is  identical  with  that  of  the  brute  creation. 


8  INTRODUCTION 

An  adequate  explanation  of  the  figure  having  been  given,  and  its  meaning 
having  been  shown,  do  not  imagine  that  you  will  find  in  its  application  a 
corresponding  element  for  each  part  of  the  figure  ;  you  must  not  ask  what  is 
meant  by  "  I  have  peace  offerings  with  me  "  (ver.  14)  ;  by  "  I  have  decked 
my  bed  with  coverings  of  tapestry  "  (ver.  16)  ;  or  what  is  added  to  the  force 
of  the  figure  by  the  observation  "  for  the  goodman  is  not  at  home  "  (ver.  19), 
and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  For  all  this  is  merely  to  complete  the 
illustration  of  the  metaphor  in  its  literal  meaning.  The  circumstances  de- 
scribed here  are  such  as  are  common  to  adulterers.  Such  conversations  take 
place  between  all  adulterous  persons.  You  must  well  understand  what  I 
have  said,  for  it  is  a  principle  of  the  utmost  importance  with  respect  to  those 
things  which  I  intend  to  expound.  If  you  observe  in  one  of  the  chapters 
that  I  explained  the  meaning  of  a  certain  figure,  and  pointed  out  to  you  its 
general  scope,  do  not  trouble  yourself  further  in  order  to  find  an  interpre- 
tation of  each  separate  portion,  for  that  would  lead  you  to  one  of  the  two 
following  erroneous  courses ;  either  you  will  miss  the  sense  included  in  the 
metaphor,  or  you  will  be  induced  to  explain  certain  things  which  require  no 
explanation,  and  which  are  not  introduced  for  that  purpose.  Through  this 
unnecessary  trouble  you  may  fall  into  the  great  error  which  besets  most 
modern  sects  in  their  foolish  writings  and  discussions ;  they  all  endeavour  to 
find  some  hidden  meaning  in  expressions  which  were  never  uttered  by  the 
author  in  that  sense.  Your  object  should  be  to  discover  in  most  of  the  figures 
the  general  idea  which  the  author  wishes  to  express.  In  some  instances  it 
will  be  sufficient  if  you  understand  from  my  remarks  that  a  certain  expression 
contains  a  figure,  although  I  may  offer  no  further  comment.  For  when  you 
know  that  it  is  not  to  be  taken  literally,  you  will  understand  at  once  to  what 
subject  it  refers.  My  statement  that  it  is  a  figurative  expression  will,  as  it 
were,  remove  the  screen  from  between  the  object  and  the  observer. 

Directions  for   the   Study   of   this   Work. 

If  you  desire  to  grasp  all  that  is  contained  in  this  book  so  that  nothing  shall 
escape  your  notice,  consider  the  chapters  in  connected  order.  In  studying 
each  chapter,  do  not  content  yourself  wath  comprehending  its  principal  sub- 
ject, but  attend  to  every  term  mentioned  therein,  although  it  may  seem  to 
have  no  connection  with  the  principal  subject.  For  what  I  have  written  in 
this  work  was  not  the  suggestion  of  the  moment ;  it  is  the  result  of  deep  study 
and  great  application.  Care  has  been  taken  that  nothing  that  appeared 
doubtful  should  be  left  unexplained.  Nothing  of  what  is  mentioned  is 
out  of  place,  every  remark  will  be  found  to  illustrate  the  subject-matter  of 
the  respective  chapter.  Do  not  read  superficially,  lest  you  do  me  an  injury, 
and  derive  no  benefit  for  yourself.  You  must  study  thoroughly  and  read 
continually  ;  for  you  will  then  find  the  solution  of  those  important  problems 
of  religion,  which  are  a  source  of  anxiety  to  all  intelligent  men.  I  adjure 
any  reader  of  my  book,  in  the  name  of  the  Most  High,  not  to  add  any  ex- 
planation even  to  a  single  word  ;  nor  to  explain  to  another  any  portion  of  it 
except  such  passages  as  have  been  fully  treated  of  by  previous  theological 
authorities ;  he  must  not  teach  others  anything  that  he  has  learnt  from  my 
work  alone,  and  that  has  not  been  hitherto  discussed  by  any  of  our  authorities. 
The  reader  must,  moreover,  beware  of  raising  objections  to  any  of  my  state- 


INTRODUCTION  9 

mcnts,  because  it  is  very  probable  that  he  may  understand  my  words  to  mean 
the  exact  opposite  to  what  I  intended  to  say.  He  will  injure  me,  while  I  en- 
deavoured to  benefit  him.  "  He  will  requite  me  evil  for  good."  Let  the 
reader  make  a  careful  study  of  this  work  ;  and  if  his  doubt  be  removed  on 
even  one  point,  let  him  praise  his  Maker  and  rest  contented  with  the  know- 
ledge he  has  acquired.  But  if  he  derive  from  it  no  benefit  whatever,  he  may 
consider  the  book  as  if  it  had  never  been  written.  Should  he  notice  any 
opinions  with  which  he  does  not  agree,  let  him  endeavour  to  find  a  suitable 
explanation,  even  if  it  seem  far-fetched,  in  order  that  he  may  judge  me 
charitably.  Such  a  duty  we  owe  to  every  one.  We  owe  it  especially  to  our 
scholars  and  theologians,  who  endeavour  to  teach  us  what  is  the  truth  accord- 
ing to  the  best  of  their  ability.  I  feel  assured  that  those  of  my  readers  who 
have  not  studied  philosophy,  will  still  derive  profit  from  many  a  chapter. 
But  the  thinker  whose  studies  have  brought  him  into  collision  with  religion, 
will,  as  I  have  already  mentioned,  derive  much  benefit  from  every  chapter. 
How  greatly  will  he  rejoice  !  How  agreeably  will  my  words  strike  his  ears  ! 
Those,  however,  whose  minds  are  confused  with  false  notions  and  perverse 
methods,  who  regard  their  misleading  studies  as  sciences,  and  imagine  them- 
selves philosophers,  though  they  have  no  knowledge  that  could  truly  be 
termed  science,  will  object  to  many  chapters,  and  will  find  in  them  many 
insuperable  difficulties,  because  they  do  not  understand  their  meaning,  and  be- 
cause I  expose  therein  the  absurdity  of  their  perverse  notions,  which  constitute 
their  riches  and  peculiar  treasure,  "  stored  up  for  their  ruin."  God  knows 
that  I  hesitated  very  much  before  writing  on  the  subjects  contained  in  this 
work,  since  they  are  profound  mysteries  ;  they  are  topics  which,  since  the 
time  of  our  captivity  have  not  been  treated  by  any  of  our  scholars  as  far  as 
we  possess  their  writings ;  how  then  shall  I  now  make  a  beginning  and  dis- 
cuss them  ?  But  I  rely  on  two  precedents  :  first,  to  similar  cases  our  Sages 
applied  the  verse,  "  It  is  time  to  do  something  in  honour  of  the  Lord  :  for 
they  have  made  void  thy  law"  (Ps.  cxix.  126).  Secondly,  they  have  said, 
"  Let  all  thy  acts  be  guided  by  pure  intentions."  On  these  two  principles 
I  relied  while  composing  some  parts  of  this  work.  Lastly,  when  I  have  a 
difficult  subject  before  me — when  I  find  the  road  narrow,  and  can  see  no 
other  way  of  teaching  a  well  established  truth  except  by  pleasing  one  intelli- 
gent man  and  displeasing  ten  thousand  fools — I  prefer  to  address  myself  to 
the  one  man,  and  to  take  no  notice  whatever  of  the  condemnation  of  the 
multitude  ;  I  prefer  to  extricate  that  intelligent  man  from  his  embarrass- 
ment and  show  him  the  cause  of  his  perplexity,  so  that  he  may  attain  per- 
fection and  be  at  peace. 

Introductory  Remarks. 
[On  Method.] 
There  are  seven  causes  of  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  to  be  met  with 
in  a  literary  work.  The  first  cause  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  author  collects 
the  opinions  of  various  men,  each  diflFering  from  the  other,  but  neglects 
to  mention  the  name  of  the  author  of  any  particular  opinion.  In  such  a  work 
contradictions  or  inconsistencies  must  occur,  since  any  two  statements  may 
belong  to  two  different  authors.  Second  cause  :  The  author  holds  at  first 
one  opinion  which  he  subsequently  rejects  ;   in  his  work,  however,  both  his 


10  INTRODUCTION 

original  and  altered  views  are  retained.  Third  cause:  The  passages  in  question 
are  not  all  to  be  taken  literally  ;  some  only  arc  to  be  understood  in  their 
literal  sense,  while  in  others  figurative  language  is  employed,  which  includes 
another  meaning  besides  the  literal  one  :  or,  in  the  apparently  inconsistent 
passages,  figurative  language  is  employed  which,  if  taken  literally,  would  seem 
to  be  contradictories  or  contraries.  Fourth  cause  :  The  premises  are  not 
identical  in  both  statements,  but  for  certain  reasons  they  are  not  fully  stated 
in  these  passages ;  or  two  propositions  with  different  subjects  which  are 
expressed  by  the  same  term  without  having  the  difference  in  meaning 
pointed  out,  occur  in  two  passages.  The  contradiction  is  therefore  only 
apparent,  but  there  is  no  contradiction  in  reality.  The  fifth  cause  is 
traceable  to  the  use  of  a  certain  method  adopted  in  teaching  and  ex- 
pounding profound  problems.  Namely,  a  difficult  and  obscure  theorem 
must  sometimes  be  mentioned  and  assumed  as  known,  for  the  illustra- 
tion of  some  elementary  and  intelligible  subject  which  must  be  taught 
beforehand,  the  commencement  being  always  made  with  the  easier  thing. 
The  teacher  must  therefore  facilitate,  in  any  manner  which  he  can 
devise,  the  explanation  of  those  theorems,  which  have  to  be  assumed  as 
known,  and  he  must  content  himself  with  giving  a  general  though  some- 
what inaccurate  notion  on  the  subject.  It  is,  for  the  present,  explained 
according  to  the  capacity  of  the  students,  that  they  may  comprehend  it  as  far 
as  they  are  required  to  understand  the  subject.  Later  on,  the  same  subject 
is  thoroughly  treated  and  fully  developed  in  its  right  place.  Sixth  cause  : 
The  contradiction  is  not  apparent,  and  only  becomes  evident  through  a 
series  of  premises.  The  larger  the  number  of  premises  necessary  to  prove 
the  contradiction  between  the  two  conclusions,  the  greater  is  the  chance  that 
it  will  escape  detection,  and  that  the  author  will  not  perceive  his  own  incon- 
sistency. Only  when  from  each  conclusion,  by  means  of  suitable  premises, 
an  inference  is  made,  and  from  the  enunciation  thus  inferred,  by  means  of 
proper  arguments,  other  conclusions  are  formed,  and  after  that  process  has 
been  repeated  many  times,  then  it  becomes  clear  that  the  original  conclusions 
are  contradictories  or  contraries.  Even  able  writers  are  liable  to  overlook 
such  inconsistencies.  If,  however,  the  contradiction  between  the  original 
statements  can  at  once  be  discovered,  and  the  author,  while  writing  the 
second,  does  not  think  of  the  first,  he  evinces  a  greater  deficiency,  and  his 
words  deserve  no  notice  whatever.  Seventh  cause  :  It  is  sometimes  necessary 
to  introduce  such  metaphysical  matter  as  may  partly  be  disclosed,  but  must 
partly  be  concealed  ;  while,  therefore,  on  one  occasion  the  object  which  the 
author  has  in  view  may  demand  that  the  metaphysical  problem  be  treated  as 
solved  in  one  way,  it  may  be  convenient  on  another  occasion  to  treat  it  as 
solved  in  the  opposite  way.  The  author  must  endeavour,  by  concealing  the 
fact  as  much  as  possible,  to  prevent  the  uneducated  reader  from  perceiving 
the  contradiction. 

Inconsistencies  occurring  in  the  Mishnah  and  Boraitot  are  traceable  to 
the  first  cause.  You  meet  frequently  in  the  Gemara  with  passages  like  the 
following  : — "  Does  not  the  beginning  of  the  passage  contradict  the  end  ? 
No  ;  the  beginning  is  the  dictum  of  a  certain  Rabbi ;  the  end  that  of  an- 
other "  ;  or  "  Rabbi  (Jehudah  ha-Nasi)  approved  of  the  opinion  of  a  certain 
rabbi  in  one  case  and  gave  it  therefore  anonymously,  and  having  accepted 


INTRODUCTION  ii 

that  of  another  rabbi  in  the  other  case  he  introduced  that  view  without 
naming  the  authority  "  ;  or  "  Who  is  the  author  of  this  anonymous  dictum  ? 
Rabbi  A."  "  Who  is  the  author  of  that  paragraph  in  the  Mishnah  ? 
Rabbi  B."     Instances  of  this  kind  are  innumerable. 

•  Apparent  contradictions  or  differences  occurring  in  the  Gemara  may  be 
traced  to  the  first  cause  and  to  the  second,  as  e.g.,  "  In  this  particular  case  he 
agrees  with  this  rabbi  "  ;  or  "  He  agrees  with  him  in  one  point,  but  differs 
from  him  in  another  "  ;  or  "  These  two  dicta  are  the  opinions  of  two  Amo- 
raim,  who  differ  as  regards  the  statement  made  by  a  certain  rabbi."  These 
are  examples  of  contradictions  traceable  to  the  first  cause.  The  following 
are  instances  which  may  be  traced  to  the  second  cause.  "  Rabba  altered  his 
opinion  on  that  point  "  ;  it  then  becomes  necessary  to  consider  which  of  the 
two  opinions  came  second.  Again,  "  In  the  first  recension  of  the  Talmud 
by  Rabbi  Ashi,  he  made  one  assertion,  and  in  the  second  a  different  one." 

The  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  met  with  in  some  passages  of  the 
prophetic  books,  if  taken  literally,  are  all  traceable  to  the  third  or  fourth 
cause,  and  it  is  exclusively  in  reference  to  this  subject  that  I  wrote  the  present 
Introduction.  You  know  that  the  following  expression  frequently  occurs, 
"  One  verse  says  this,  another  that,"  showing  the  contradiction,  and  explain- 
ing that  either  some  premise  is  wanting  or  the  subject  is  altered.  Comp. 
"  Solomon,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  thy  words  contradict  thy  father  ;  they  are 
themselves  inconsistent,  etc."  Many  similar  instances  occur  in  the  writings 
of  our  Sages.  The  passages  in  the  prophetical  books  which  our  Sages  have 
explained,  mostly  refer  to  religious  or  moral  precepts.  Our  desire,  however, 
is  to  discuss  such  passages  as  contain  apparent  contradictions  in  regard  to  the 
principles  of  our  faith.  I  shall  explain  some  of  them  in  various  chapters  of 
the  present  work  ;  for  this  subject  also  belongs  to  the  secrets  of  the  Torah. 

Contradictions  traceable  to  the  seventh  cause  occurring  in  the  prophetical 
works  require  special  investigation  ;  and  no  one  should  express  his  opinion 
on  that  matter  by  reasoning  and  arguing  without  weighing  the  matter  well 
in  his  mind. 

Inconsistencies  in  the  writings  of  true  philosophers  are  traceable  to  the 
fifth  cause.  Contradictions  occurring  in  the  writings  of  most  authors  and 
commentators,  such  as  are  not  included  in  the  above-mentioned  works,  are 
due  to  the  sixth  cause.  Many  examples  of  this  class  of  contradictions  are 
found  in  the  Midrash  and  the  Agada  ;  hence  the  saying,  "  We  must  not  raise 
questions  concerning  the  contradictions  met  with  in  the  Agada."  You  may 
also  notice  in  them  contradictions  due  to  the  seventh  cause.  Any  inconsis- 
tency discovered  in  the  present  work  will  be  found  to  arise  in  consequence  of 
the  fifth  cause  or  the  seventh.  Notice  this,  consider  its  truth,  and  remember 
it  well,  lest  you  misunderstand  some  of  the  chapters  in  this  book. 

Having  concluded  these  introductory  remarks  I  proceed  to  examine  those 
expressions,  to  the  true  meaning  of  which,  as  apparent  from  the  context,  it 
is  necessary  to  direct  your  attention.  This  book  will  then  be  a  key  admitting 
to  places  the  gates  of  which  would  otherwise  be  closed.  When  the  gates  are 
opened  and  men  enter,  their  souls  will  enjoy  repose,  their  eyes  will  be  grati- 
fied, and  even  their  bodies,  after  all  toil  and  labour,  will  be  refreshed. 


PART   I 


"  Open  ye  the  gates,  that  the  righteous  nation  which  keepeth  the  truth  may 

enter  in." — (Isa.  xxvi.  2.) 


CHAPTER   I 

Some  have  been  of  opinion  that  by  the  Hebrew  z.elem,  the  shape  and  figure 
of  a  thing  is  to  be  understood,  and  this  explanation  led  men  to  believe  in  the 
corporeality  [of  the  Divine  Being]  :   for  they  thought  that  the  words  "  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  xelem  "  (Gen.i.  26),  implied  that  God  had  the  form 
of  a  human  being,  i.e.,  that  He  had  figure  and  shape,  and  that,  consequently, 
He  was  corporeal.     They  adhered  faithfully  to  this  view,  and  thought  that 
if  they  were  to  relinquish  it  they  would  eo  ipso  reject  the  truth  of  the  Bible  : 
and  further,  if  they  did  not  conceive  God  as  having  a  body  possessed  of  face 
and  limbs,  similar  to  their  own  in  appearance,  they  would  have  to  deny  even 
the  existence  of  God.     The  sole  difference  which  they  admitted,  was  that 
He  excelled  in  greatness  and  splendour,  and  that  His  substance  was  not  flesh 
and  blood.     Thus  far  went  their  conception  of  the  greatness  and  glory  of 
God.     The  incorporeality  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  His  unity,  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  word — for  there  is  no  real  unity  without  incorporeality — will  be 
fully  proved  in  the  course  of  the  present  treatise.     (Part  n.,ch.i.)     In  this 
chapter  it  is  our  sole  intention  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  words  zelem 
and  demut.     I  hold  that  the  Hebrew  equivalent  of  "  form  "  in  the  ordinary 
acceptation  of  the  word,  viz.,  the  figure  and  shape  of  a  thing,  is  toiir.     Thus 
we  find"  [And  Joseph  was]  beautiful  in  toiir  ('form'),  and  beautiful  in 
appearance"    (Gen.   xxxix.  6):    "What  form  {toiir)   is    he    of?"  (i   Sam. 
xxviii.  14)  :   "  As  the  form  {toiir)  of  the  children  of  a  king  "  (Judges  viii.  18). 
It  is  also  applied  to  form  produced  by  human  labour,  as  "  He  marketh  its 
form  {toiir)  with  a  line,"  "  and  he  marketh  its  form  {toar)  with  the  compass  " 
(Isa.  xliv.  13).     This  term  is  not  at  all  applicable  to  God.     The  term  zelem, 
on  the  other  hand,  signifies  the  specific  form,  viz.,  that  which  constitutes  t-x 
essence  of  a  thing,  whereby  the  thing  is  what  it  is ;   the  reality  of  a  thing  in 
so  far  as  it  is  that  particular  being.     In  man  the  "  form  "  is  that  constituent 
which  gives  him  human  perception  :  and  on  account  of  this  intellectual  per- 
ception the  term  z,elem  is  employed  in  the  sentences  "  In  the  zelem  of  God 
he  created  him  "  (Gen.  i.  27).     It  is  therefore  rightly  said,  "  Thou  despisest 
their  zelem  "  (Ps.  Ixiii.  20)  ;   the  "  contempt  "  can  only  concern  the  soul — 
the  specific    form  of  man,  not  the  properties  and  shape  of  his  body.     I  am 
also  of  opinion  that  the  reason  why  this  term  is  used  for  "  idols  "  may  be 
found  in  the  circumstance  that  they  are  worshipped  on  account  of  some  idea 
represented  by  them,  not  on  account  of  their  figure  and  shape.     For  the 
same  reason  the  term  is  used  in  the  expression,  "  the  forms  {zalme)  of  your 

13 


14  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

emerods  "  (i  Sam.  vi.  5),  for  the  chief  object  was  the  removal  of  the  injury 
caused  by  the  emerods,  not  a  change  of  their  shape.  As,  however,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  term  z^lem  is  employed  in  these  two  cases,  viz.  "  the 
images  of  the  emerods  "  and  "  the  idols  "  on  account  of  the  external  shape, 
the  term  z:.elgm  is  either  a  homonym  or  a  hybrid  term,  and  would  denote  both 
the  specific  form  and  the  outward  shape,  and  similar  properties  relating  to 
the  dimensions  and  the  shape  of  material  bodies ;  and  in  the  phrase  "  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  zeUm  "  (Gen.  i.  26),  the  term  signifies  "  the  specific 
form  "  of  man,  viz.,  his  intellectual  perception,  and  does  not  refer  to  his 
"  figure  "  or  "  shape."  Thus  we  have  shown  the  difference  between  zeUm  and 
toar,  and  explained  the  meaning  of  zelem. 

Demut  is  derived  from  the  verb  damah,  "  he  is  like."  This  term  likewise 
denotes  agreement  with  regard  to  some  abstract  relation :  comp.  "  I  am 
like  a  pelican  of  the  wilderness  "  (Ps.  cii.  7)  ;  the  author  does  not  compare 
himself  to  the  pelican  in  point  of  wings  and  feathers,  but  in  point  of  sadness. 
"  Nor  any  tree  in  the  garden  of  God  was  like  unto  him  in  beauty"  (Ezek.  xxxi. 
8)  ;  the  comparison  refers  to  the  idea  of  beauty.  "  Their  poison  is  like  the 
poison  of  a  serpent  "  (Ps.  Iviii.  5)  ;  "  He  is  like  unto  a  lion  "  (Ps.  xvii.  1 2)  ; 
the  resemblance  indicated  in  these  passages  does  not  refer  to  the  figure  and 
shape,  but  to  some  abstract  idea.  In  the  same  manner  is  used  "  the  likeness 
of  the  throne  "  (Ezek.  i.  26);  the  comparison  is  made  with  regard  to  greatness 
and  glory,  not,  as  many  believe,  with  regard  to  its  square  form,  its  breadth,  or 
the  length  of  its  legs :  this  explanation  applies  also  to  the  phrase  "  the  like- 
ness of  the  hayyot  ("  living  creatures,"  Ezek.  i.  13). 

As  man's  distinction  consists  in  a  property  which  no  other  creature  on  earth 
possesses,  viz.,  intellectual  perception,  in  the  exercise  of  which  he  does  not 
employ  his  senses,  nor  move  his  hand  or  his  foot,  this  perception  has  been 
compared — though  only  apparently,  not  in  truth — to  the  Divine  perception, 
which  requires  no  corporeal  organ.  On  this  account,  i.e.,  on  account  of  the 
Divine  intellect  with  which  man  has  been  endowed,  he  is  said  to  have  been 
made  in  the  form  and  likeness  of  the  Almighty,  but  far  from  it  be  the  notion 
that  the  Supreme  Being  is  corporeal,  having  a  material  form. 

CHAPTER   II 

Some  years  ago  a  learned  man  asked  me  a  question  of  great  importance  ;  the 
problem  and  the  solution  which  we  gave  in  our  reply  deserve  the  closest  atten- 
tion. Before,  however,  entering  upon  this  problem  and  its  solution  I  must 
premise  that  every  Hebrew  knows  that  the  term  Elohim  is  a  homonym, 
and  denotes  God,  angels,  judges,  and  the  rulers  of  countries,  and  that  On- 
kelos  the  proselyte  explained  it  in  the  true  and  correct  manner  by  taking 
Elohim  in  the  sentence,  "  and  ye  shall  be  like  Elohim  "  (Gen.  iii.  5)  in  the  last- 
mentioned  meaning,  and  rendering  the  sentence  "  and  ye  shall  be  like 
princes."  Having  pointed  out  the  homonymity  of  the  term  "  Elohim  "  we 
return  to  the  question  under  consideration.  "  It  would  at  first  sight,"  said 
the  objector,  "  appear  from  Scripture  that  man  was  originally  intended  to  be 
perfectly  equal  to  the  rest  of  the  animal  creation,  which  is  not  endowed  with 
intellect,  reason,  or  power  of  distinguishing  between  good  and  evil :  but  that 
Adam's  disobedience  to  the  command  of  God  procured  him  that  great  per- 


ON   GENESIS   III.    5  15 

fection  which  is  the  peculiarity  of  man,  viz.,  the  power  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween good  and  evil — the  noblest  of  all  the  faculties  of  our  nature,  the  essen- 
tial characteristic  of  the  human  race.     It  thus  appears  strange  that  the 
punishment  for  rebelliousness  should  be  the  means  of  elevating  man  to  a 
pinnacle  of  perfection  to  which  he  had  not  attained  previously.     This  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  a  certain  man  was  rebellious  and  extremely  wicked, 
wherefore  his  nature  was  changed  for  the  better,  and  he  was  made  to  shine 
as  a  star  in  the  heavens."     Such  was  the  purport  and  subject  of  the  question, 
though  not  in  the  exact  words  of  the  inquirer.     Now  mark  our  reply,  which 
was  as  follows : — "  You  appear  to  have  studied  the  matter  superficially,  and 
nevertheless  you  imagine  that  you  can  understand  a  book  which  has  been  the 
guide  of  past  and  present  generations,  when  you  for  a  moment  withdraw  from 
your  lusts  and  appetites,  and  glance  over  its  contents  as  if  you  were  reading 
a  historical  work  or  some  poetical  composition.     Collect  your  thoughts  and 
examine  the  matter  carefully,  for  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  you  at  first 
sight  think,  but  as  you  will  find  after  due  deliberation  ;  namely,  the  intellect 
which  was  granted  to  man  as  the  highest  endowment,  was  bestowed  on  him 
before  his  disobedience.     With  reference  to  this  gift  the  Bible  states  that 
"  man  was  created  in  the  form  and  likeness  of  God."     On  account  of  this  gift 
of  intellect  man  was  addressed  by  God,  and  received  His  commandments,  as 
it  is  said  :   "  And  the  Lord  God  commanded  Adam  "  (Gen.  ii.  16) — for  no 
commandments  are  given  to  the  brute  creation  or  to  those  who  are  devoid  of 
understanding.     Through  the  intellect  man  distinguishes  between  the  true 
and  the  false.     This  faculty  Adam  possessed  perfectly  and  completely.     The 
right  and  the  wrong  are  terms  employed  in  the  science  of  apparent  truths 
(morals),  not  in  that  of  necessary  truths,  as,  e.g.,  it  is  not  correct  to  say,  in 
reference  to  the  proposition  "  the  heavens  are  spherical,"  it  is  "  good  "  or  to 
declare  the  assertion  that  "  the  earth  is  flat  "  to  be  "  bad  "  ;   but  we  say  of 
the  one  it  is  true,  of  the  other  it  is  false.     Similarly  our  language  expresses 
the  idea  of  true  and  false  by  the  terms  emet  and  sheker,  of  the  morally  right 
and  the  morally  wrong,  by  tob  and  to'.     Thus  it  is  the  function  of  the  in- 
tellect to  discriminate  between  the  true  and  the  false — a  distinction  which  is 
applicable  to  all  objects  of  intellectual  perception.     When  Adam  was  yet  in 
a  state  of  innocence,  and  was  guided  solely  by  reflection  and  reason — on 
account  of  which  it  is  said  :    "  Thou  hast  made  him  (man)  little  lower  than 
the  angels  "  (Ps.  viii.  6) — he  was  not  at  all  able  to  follow  or  to  understand 
the  principles  of  apparent  truths ;   the  most  manifest  impropriety,  viz.,  to 
appear  in  a  state  of  nudity,  was  nothing  unbecoming  according  to  his  idea:  he 
could  not  comprehend  why  it  should  be  so.     After  man's  disobedience,  how- 
ever, when  he  began  to  give  way  to  desires  which  had  their  source  in  his 
imagination  and  to  the  gratification  of  his  bodily  appetites,  as  it  is  said,"  And 
the  wife  saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food  and  delightful  to  the  eyes  " 
(Gen.  iii.  6),  he  was  punished  by  the  loss  of  part  of  that  intellectual  faculty 
which  he  had  previously  possessed.      He  therefore  transgressed  a  command 
with  which  he  had  been  charged  on  the  score  of  his  reason  ;   and  having  ob- 
tained a  knowledge  of  the  apparent  truths,  he  was  wholly  absorbed  in  the 
study  of  what  is  proper  and  what  improper.     Then  he  fully  understood  the 
magnitude  of  the  loss  he  had  sustained,  what  he  had  forfeited,  and  in  what 
situation  he  was  thereby  placed.     Hence  we  read,  "  And  ye  shall  be  like 


i6  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

elohim,  knowing  good  and  evil,"  and  not  "  knowing  "  or  "  discerning  the 
true  and  the  false  "  :  while  in  necessary  truths  we  can  only  apply  the  words 
"  true  and  false,"  not  "  good  and  evil."  Further  observe  the  passage,  "  And 
the  eyes  of  both  were  opened,  and  they  knew  they  were  naked  "  (Gen.  iii.  7)  : 
it  is  not  said,  "  And  the  eyes  of  both  were  opened,  and  they  saw  "  ;  for  what 
the  man  had  seen  previously  and  what  he  saw  after  this  circumstance  was 
precisely  the  same  ;  there  had  been  no  blindness  which  was  now  removed, 
but  he  received  a  new  faculty  whereby  he  found  things  wrong  which  previ- 
ously he  had  not  regarded  as  wrong.  Besides,  you  must  know  that  the  He- 
brew word  pakah  used  in  this  passage  is  exclusively  employed  in  the  figurative 
sense  of  receiving  new  sources  of  knowledge,  not  in  that  of  regaining  the 
sense  of  sight.  Comp.,  "God  opened  her  eyes"  (Gen.  xxi.  19).  "Then 
shall  the  eyes  of  the  blind  be  opened  "  (Isaiah  xxxviii.  8).  "  Open  ears,  he 
heareth  not  "  (ibid.  xlii.  20),  similar  in  sense  to  the  verse,  "  Which  have  eyes 
to  see,  and  see  not  "  (Ezek.  xii.  2).  When,  however.  Scripture  says  of  Adam, 
"  He  changed  his  face  (panav)  and  thou  sentest  him  forth  "  (Job  xiv.  20),  it 
must  be  understood  in  the  following  way  :  On  account  of  the  change  of  his 
original  aim  he  was  sent  away.  For  fatiim,  the  Hebrew  equivalent  of  face, 
is  derived  from  the  verb  panah, "  he  turned,"  and  signifies  also  "  aim,"  be- 
cause man  generally  turns  his  face  towards  the  thing  he  desires.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  interpretation,  our  text  suggests  that  Adam,  as  he  altered  his 
intention  and  directed  his  thoughts  to  the  acquisition  of  what  he  was  for- 
bidden, he  was  banished  from  Paradise  :  this  was  his  punishment ;  it  was 
measure  for  measure.  At  first  he  had  the  privilege  of  tasting  pleasure  and 
happiness,  and  of  enjoying  repose  and  security  ;  but  as  his  appetites  grew 
stronger,  and  he  followed  his  desires  and  impulses,  (as  we  have  already  stated 
above),  and  partook  of  the  food  he  was  forbidden  to  taste,  he  was  deprived  of 
everything,  was  doomed  to  subsist  on  the  meanest  kind  of  food,  such  as  he 
never  tasted  before,  and  this  even  only  after  exertion  and  labour,  as  it  is  said, 
"  Thorns  and  thistles  shall  grow  up  for  thee  "  (Gen.  iii.  18),  "  By  the  sweat 
of  thy  brow,"  etc.,  and  in  explanation  of  this  the  text  continues,  "  And  the 
Lord  God  drove  him  from  the  Garden  of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  whence  he 
was  taken."  He  was  now  with  respect  to  food  and  many  other  requirements 
brought  to  the  level  of  the  lower  animals;  comp.,  "Thou  shalt  eat  the  grass 
of  the  field  "  (Gen.  iii.  1 8).  Reflecting  on  his  condition,  the  Psalmist  says, 
"  Adam  unable  to  dwell  in  dignity,  was  brought  to  the  level  of  the  dumb 
beast"  (Ps.  xlix.  13). 

"  May  the  Almighty  be  praised,  whose  design  and  wisdom  cannot  be 
fathomed." 

CHAPTER    III 

It  might  be  thought  that  the  Hebrew  words  temunah  and  tabnit  have  one 
and  the  same  meaning,  but  this  is  not  the  case.  Tabnit,  derived  from  the 
verb  banah  (he  built),  signifies  the  build  and  construction  of  a  thing — that  is 
to  say,  its  figure,  whether  square,  round,  triangular,  or  of  any  other  shape. 
Comp.  "  the  pattern  [tabnit)  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  pattern  {tabnit) 
of  all  its  vessels  "  (Exod.  xxv.  9)  ;  "  according  to  the  pattern  (tabnit)  which 
thou  wast  shown  upon  the  mount  "  (Exod.  xxv.  40)  ;  "  the  form  of  any  bird  " 
(Dcut.  iv.  17)  ;  "  the  form  (tabtiit)  of  a  hand  "  (Ezek.  viii.  3)  ;  "  the  pattern 


ON   HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  17 

(tabnit)  of  the  porch"  (l  Chron.  xxviii.  ll).  In  all  these  quotations  it  is 
the  shape  which  is  referred  to.  Therefore  the  Hebrew  language  never  em- 
ploys the  word  tabnit  in  speaking  of  the  qualities  of  God  Almighty. 

The  term  temunah,  on  the  other  hand,  is  used  in  the  Bible  in  three  diflFerent 
senses.  It  signifies,  first,  the  outlines  of  things  which  are  perceived  by  our 
bodily  senses,  i.e.,  their  shape  and  form  ;  as,  e.g.,  "  And  ye  make  an  image 
the  form  (temunat)  of  some  likeness  "  (Deut.  iv.  16)  ;  "  for  ye  saw  no  like- 
ness "  {temunah)  (Deut.  iv.  15).  Secondly,  the  forms  of  our  imagination,  i.e., 
the  impressions  retained  in  imagination  when  the  objects  have  ceased  to 
affect  our  senses.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  the  passage  which  begins  "  In 
thoughts  from  the  visions  of  the  night"  (Job  iv.  13),  and  which  concludes 
"  it  remained  but  I  could  not  recognize  its  sight,  only  an  image — temunah — 
was  before  my  eyes,"  i.e.,  an  image  which  presented  itself  to  my  sight  during 
sleep.  Thirdly,  the  true  form  of  an  object,  which  is  perceived  only  by  the 
intellect :  and  it  is  in  this  third  signification  that  the  term  is  applied  to  God. 
The  words  "  And  the  similitude  of  the  Lord  shall  he  behold  "  (Num.  xii.  'S) 
therefore  mean  "  he  shall  comprehend  the  true  essence  of  the  Lord." 

CHAPTER   IV 

The  three  verbs  raah,  hibbit,  and  hazah,  which  denote  "  he  perceived  with 
the  eye,"  are  also  used  figuratively  in  the  sense  of  intellectual  perception.  As 
regards  the  first  of  these  verbs  this  is  well  known,  e.g.,  "  And  he  looked 
(va-yar)  and  behold  a  well  in  the  field  "  (Gen.  xxix.  2)  :  here  it  signifies 
ocular  perception  ;  "  yea,  my  heart  has  seen  (raah)  much  of  wisdom  and 
of  knowledge  "  (Eccles.  i.  16)  ;  in  this  passage  it  refers  to  the  intellectual 
perception. 

In  this  figurative  sense  the  verb  is  to  be  understood,  when  applied  to  God  ; 
e.g.,  "  I  saw  (ra'i'tt)  the  Lord  "  (l  Kings  xxii.  19)  ;  "  And  the  Lord  ap- 
peared (va-yera)  unto  him  "  (Gen.  xviii.  i)  ;  "  And  God  saw  (va-yar)  that 
it  was  good  "  (Gen.  i.  10)  ;  "  I  beseech  thee,  show  me  (hareni)  thy  glory  " 
(Exod.  xxxiii.  18)  ;  "  And  they  saw  {va-yirli)  the  God  of  Israel  "  (Exod.  xxiv. 
10).  All  these  instances  refer  to  intellectual  perception,  and  by  no  means  to 
perception  with  the  eye  as  in  its  literal  meaning  :  for,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
eye  can  only  perceive  a  corporeal  object,  and  in  connection  with  it  certain 
accidents,  as  colour,  shape,  etc.  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  God  does  not 
perceive  by  means  of  a  corporeal  organ,  as  will  be  explained. 

In  the  same  manner  the  Hebrew  hibbit  signifies  "he  viewed  "  with  the  eye; 
comp.  "Look  (tabbit)  not  behind  thee"  (Gen.  xix.  17);  "But  his  wife 
looked  (va-tabbet)  back  from  him  "  (Gen.  xix.  26)  ;  "  And  if  one  look  (ve- 
nibbat)  unto  the  land  "  (Isa.  v.  30)  ;  and  figuratively,  "  to  view  and  observe  " 
with  the  intellect,  "  to  contemplate  "  a  thing  till  it  be  understood.  In  this 
sense  the  verb  is  used  in  passages  like  the  following  :  "  He  hath  not  beheld 
{hibbit)  iniquity  in  Jacob  "  (Num.  xxiii.  21)  ;  for  "  iniquity  "  cannot  be  seen 
with  the  eye.  The  words,  "  And  they  looked  {ve-hibbitu)  after  Moses  " 
(Exod.  xxxiii.  8) — in  addition  to  the  literal  understanding  of  the  phrase — 
were  explained  by  our  Sages  in  a  figurative  sense.  According  to  them,  these 
words  mean  that  the  Israelites  examined  and  criticised  the  actions  and  sayings 
of  Moses.     Compare  also  "  Contemplate  {habbet),  I  pray  thee,  the  heaven" 


i8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

(Gen.  XV.  5)  ;  for  this  took  place  in  a  prophetic  vision.  This  verb,  when 
applied  to  God,  is  employed  in  this  figurative  sense  ;  e.g.,  "  to  look  (me- 
habbit)  upon  God  "  (Exod.  iii.  6)  ;  "  And  the  similitude  of  the  Lord  shall  he 
behold  "  iyabbit)  (Num.  xii.  8)  ;  "  And  thou  canst  not  look  {habbet)  on  ini- 
quity "  (Hab.  i.  13). 

The  same  explanation  applies  to  haxah.  It  denotes  to  view  with  the  eye, 
as  :  "  And  let  our  eye  look  {ve-tahaz)  upon  Zion  "  (Mic.  iv.  ll)  ;  and  also 
figuratively,  to  perceive  mentally  :  "  which  he  saw  Qpazah)  concerning  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  "  (Isa.  i.  i)  ;  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Abraham 
in  a  vision  "  {mahazeh)  (Gen.  xv.  l)  :  in  this  sense  hazah  is  used  in  the 
phrase,  "  Also  they  saw  (va-yehezu)  God  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  1 1).     Note  this  well. 

CHAPTER   V 

When  the  chief  of  philosophers  [Aristotle]  was  about  to  inquire  into  some 
very  profound  subjects,  and  to  establish  his  theory  by  proofs,  he  commenced 
his  treatise  with  an  apology,  and  requested  the  reader  to  attribute  the  author's 
inquiries  not  to  presumption,  vanity,  egotism,  or  arrogance,  as  though  he 
were  interfering  with  things  of  which  he  had  no  knowledge,  but  rather  to  his 
zeal  and  his  desire  to  discover  and  establish  true  doctrines,  as  far  as  lay  in 
human  power.  We  take  the  same  position,  and  think  that  a  man,  when  he 
commences  to  speculate,  ought  not  to  embark  at  once  on  a  subject  so  vast 
and  important ;  he  should  previously  adapt  himself  to  the  study  of  the 
several  branches  of  science  and  knowledge,  should  most  thoroughly  refine 
his  moral  character  and  subdue  his  passions  and  desires,  the  offspring  of  his 
imagination  ;  when,  in  addition,  he  has  obtained  a  knowledge  of  the  true 
fundamental  propositions,  a  comprehension  of  the  several  methods  of  infer- 
ence and  proof,  and  the  capacity  of  guarding  against  fallacies,  then  he 
may  approach  the  investigation  of  this  subject.  He  must,  however,  not 
decide  any  question  by  the  first  idea  that  suggests  itself  to  his  mind,  or  at 
once  direct  his  thoughts  and  force  them  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  Creator, 
but  he  must  wait  modestly  and  patiently,  and  advance  step  by  step. 

In  this  sense  we  must  understand  the  words  "  And  Moses  hid  his  face,  for 
he  was  afraid  to  look  upon  God  "  (Exod.  iii.  6),  though  retaining  also  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  passage,  that  Moses  was  afraid  to  gaze  at  the  light 
which  appeared  to  his  eye  ;  but  it  must  on  no  account  be  assumed  that  the 
Being  which  is  exalted  far  above  every  imperfection  can  be  perceived  by  the 
eye.  This  act  of  Moses  was  highly  commended  by  God,  who  bestowed  on 
him  a  well  deserved  portion  of  His  goodness,  as  it  is  said  :  "  And  the  simili- 
tude of  the  Lord  shall  he  behold  "  (Num.  xii.  8).  This,  say  our  Sages,  was 
the  reward  for  having  previously  hidden  his  face,  lest  he  should  gaze  at  the 
Eternal.     {Talm.  B.  Berakot  Fa.) 

But  "  the  nobles  of  the  Children  of  Israel  "  were  impetuous,  and  allowed 
their  thoughts  to  go  unrestrained  :  what  they  perceived  was  but  imperfect. 
Therefore  it  is  said  of  them,  "  And  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel,  and  there  was 
under  his  feet,"  etc.  (Exod.  xxiv.  10)  ;  and  not  merely,  "  and  they  saw  the 
God  of  Israel  "  ;  the  purpose  of  the  whole  passage  is  to  criticize  their  act  of 
seeing  and  not  to  describe  it.  They  are  blamed  for  the  nature  of  their  per- 
ception, which  was  to  a  certain  extent  corporeal — a  result  which  necessarily 


ON    EXODUS    XXIV.    lo-ii  19 

followed,  from  the  fact  that  they  ventured  too  far  before  being  perfectly 
prepared.  They  deserved  to  perish,  but  at  the  intercession  of  Moses  this 
fate  was  averted  by  God  for  the  time.  They  were  afterwards  burnt  at 
Taberah,  except  Nadab  and  Abihu,  who  were  burnt  in  the  Tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  according  to  what  is  stated  by  authentic  tradition.     {Mtdr. 

Rabba  ad  locum.) 

If  such  was  the  case  with  them,  how  much  more  is  it  incumbent  on  us  who 
are  inferior,  and  on  those  who  are  below  us,  to  persevere  in  perfecting  our 
knowledge  of  the  elements,  and  in  rightly  understanding  the  preliminaries 
which  purify  the  mind  from  the  defilement  of  error  ;  then  we  may  enter  the 
holy  and  divine  camp  in  order  to  gaze  :  as  the  Bible  says,  "  And  let  the  priests 
also,  which  come  near  to  the  Lord,  sanctify  themselves,  lest  the  Lord  break 
forth  upon  them  "  (Exod.  xix.  22).  Solomon,  also,  has  cautioned  all  who 
endeavour  to  attain  this  high  degree  of  knowledge  in  the  following  figurative 
terms,  "  Keep  thy  foot  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of  God  ''  (Eccles.  iv.  17). 

I  will  now  return  to  complete  what  I  commenced  to  explain.  The  nobles 
of  the  Children  of  Israel,  besides  erring  in  their  perception,  were,  through 
this  cause,  also  misled  in  their  actions  ;  for  in  consequence  of  their  confused 
perception,  they  gave  way  to  bodily  cravings.  This  is  meant  by  the  words, 
"  Also  they  saw  God  and  did  eat  and  drink  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  1 1).  The  principal 
part  of  that  passage,  viz.,  "  And  there  was  under  his  feet  as  it  were  a  paved 
work  of  a  sapphire  stone  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  lo),  will  be  further  explained  in  the 
course  of  the  present  treatise  (ch.  xxviii.).  All  we  here  intend  to  say  is,  that 
wherever  in  a  similar  connection  any  one  of  the  three  verbs  mentioned  above 
occurs,  it  has  reference  to  intellectual  perception,  not  to  the  sensation  of  sight 
by  the  eye  ;  for  God  is  not  a  being  to  be  perceived  by  the  eye. 

It  will  do  no  harm,  however,  if  those  who  are  unable  to  comprehend  what 
we  here  endeavour  to  explain  should  refer  all  the  words  in  question  to  sen- 
suous perception,  to  seeing  lights  created  [for  the  purpose],  angels,  or  similar 
beings. 

CHAPTER   VI 

The  two  Hebrew  nouns  ish  and  ishshah  were  originally  employed  to  designate 
the  "  male  and  female  "  of  human  beings,  but  were  afterwards  applied  to  the 
"  male  and  female  "  of  the  other  species  of  the  animal  creation.  For  in- 
stance, we  read,  "  Of  every  clean  beast  thou  shalt  take  to  thee  by  sevens," 
ish  ve-ishto  (Gen.  vii.  2),  in  the  same  sense  as  ish  ve-ishshah,  "  male  and 
female."  The  term  zakar  u-nekebah  was  afterwards  applied  to  anything 
designed  and  prepared  for  union  with  another  object  Thus  we  read, 
"  The  five  curtains  shall  be  coupled  together,  one  (ishshah)  to  the  other  " 
(ahoiah)  (Exod.  xxvi.  3). 

It  will  easily  be  seen  that  the  Hebrew  equivalents  for  "  brother  and  sister  " 
are  likewise  treated  as  homonyms,  and  used,  in  a  figurative  sense,  like  ish  and 
ishshah. 

CHAPTER    VII 

It  is  well  known  that  the  verb  yalad  means  "  to  bear,"  "  they  have  born 
{ve-yaledu)  him  children  "  (Deut.  xxi.  15).     The  word  was  next  used  in  a 


20  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

figurative  sense  with  reference  to  various  objects  in  nature,  meaning,  "  to 
create,"  e.g.  "  before  the  mountains  were  created  "  (yulladu)  (Ps.  xc.  2)  ; 
also,  "  to  produce,"  in  reference  to  that  which  the  earth  causes  to  come  forth 
as  if  by  birth,  e.g.,  "  He  will  cause  her  to  bear  {holidah)  and  bring  forth  " 
(Isa.  Iv.  10).  The  verb  further  denotes,  "  to  bring  forth,"  said  of  changes  in 
the  process  of  time,  as  though  they  were  things  which  were  born,  e.g.,  "  for 
thou  knowest  not  what  a  day  may  bring  forth  "  (yelfd)  (Prov.  xxvii.  l). 
Another  figurative  use  of  the  word  is  its  application  to  the  formation  of 
thoughts  and  ideas,  or  of  opinions  resulting  from  them  ;  comp.  "  and  brought 
forth  {ve-yalad)  falsehood  "  (Ps.  vii.  14)  ;  also,  "  and  they  please  themselves 
in  the  children  {yalde)  of  strangers  "  (Isa.  ii.  6),  i.e.,  "  they  delight  in  the 
opinions  of  strangers."  Jonathan  the  son  of  Uzziel  paraphrases  this  passage, 
"  they  walk  in  the  customs  of  other  nations." 

A  man  who  has  instructed  another  in  any  subject,  and  has  improved  his 
knowledge,  may  in  like  manner  be  regarded  as  the  parent  of  the  person  taught, 
because  he  is  the  author  of  that  knowledge  ;  and  thus  the  pupils  of  the  pro- 
phets are  called  "  sons  of  the  prophets,"  as  I  shall  explain  when  treating  of 
the  homonymity  of  ben  (son).  In  this  figurative  sense,  the  verb  yalad  (to 
bear)  is  employed  when  it  is  said  of  Adam,  "  And  Adam  lived  an  hundred  and 
thirty  years,  and  begat  (va-yoled)  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  in  his  form  " 
(Gen.  V.  3).  As  regards  the  words,  "  the  form  of  Adam,  and  his  likeness," 
we  have  already  stated  (ch.  i.)  their  meaning.  Those  sons  of  Adam  who  were 
born  before  that  time  were  not  human  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  they  had 
not  "  the  form  of  man."  With  reference  to  Seth  who  had  been  instructed, 
enlightened  and  brought  to  human  perfection,  it  could  rightly  be  said,  "  he 
(Adam)  begat  a  son  in  his  likeness,  in  his  form."  It  is  acknowledged  that  a 
man  who  does  not  possess  this  "  form  "  (the  nature  of  which  has  just  been 
explained)  is  not  human,  but  a  mere  animal  in  human  shape  and  form.  Yet 
such  a  creature  has  the  power  of  causing  harm  and  injury  :  a  power  which 
does  not  belong  to  other  creatures.  For  those  gifts  of  intelligence  and  judg- 
ment with  which  he  has  been  endowed  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  perfec- 
tion, but  which  he  has  failed  to  apply  to  their  proper  aim,  are  used  by  him 
for  wicked  and  mischievous  ends  ;  he  begets  evil  things,  as  though  he  merely 
resembled  man,  or  simulated  his  outward  appearance.  Such  was  the  con- 
dition of  those  sons  of  Adam  who  preceded  Seth,  In  reference  to  this  subject 
the  Midrash  says :  "  During  the  130  years  when  Adam  was  under  rebuke  he 
begat  spirits,  i.e.,  demons ;  when,  however,  he  was  again  restored  to  divine 
favour  "  he  begat  in  his  likeness,  in  his  form."  This  is  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage, "  Adam  lived  one  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  he  begat  in  his  likeness, 
in  his  form  "  (Gen.  v.  3). 

CHAPTER   VIII 

Originally  the  Hebrew  term  makom  (place)  applied  both  to  a  particular 
spot  and  to  space  in  general ;  subsequently  it  received  a  wider  signification 
and  denoted  "  position,"  or  "  degree,"  as  regards  the  perfection  of  man  in 
certain  things.  We  say,  e.g.,  this  man  occupies  a  certain  place  in  such  and 
such  a  subject.  In  this  sense  this  term,  as  is  well  known,  is  frequently  used 
by  authors,  e.g.,  "  He  fills  his  ancestors'  place  {makom)  in  point  of  wisdom 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  21 

and  piety  "  ;  "  the  dispute  still  remains  in  its  place  "  {makom),  i.e.,  in  statu 
quo  [antf].  In  the  verse,  "  Blessed  be  the  glory  of  the  Lord  from  His  place  " 
\mekomo)  (Ezek.  iii.  12),  makom  has  this  figurative  meaning,  and  the  verse  may 
be  paraphrased  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  according  to  the  exalted  nature  of  His 
existence,"  and  wherever  makom  is  applied  to  God,  it  expresses  the  same  idea, 
namely,  the  distinguished  position  of  His  existence,  to  which  nothing  is  equal 
or  comparable,  as  will  be  shown  below  (chap.  Ivi.). 

It  should  be  observed  that  when  we  treat  in  this  work  of  any  homonym, 
we  do  not  desire  you  to  confine  yourself  to  that  which  is  stated  in  that  par- 
ticular chapter ;  but  we  open  for  you  a  portal  and  direct  your  attention  to 
those  significations  of  the  word  which  are  suited  to  our  purpose,  though  they 
may  not  be  complete  from  a  philological  point  of  view.  You  should  examine 
the  prophetical  books  and  other  works  composed  by  men  of  science,  notice 
the  meaning  of  every  word  which  occurs  in  them,  and  take  homonyms  in  that 
sense  which  is  in  harmony  with  the  context.  What  I  say  in  a  particular 
passage  is  a  key  for  the  comprehension  of  all  similar  passages.  For  example, 
we  have  explained  here  makom  in  the  sentence  "  Blessed  be  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  from  His  place  "  (mekomo)  ;  but  you  must  understand  that  the  word 
makom  has  the  same  signification  in  the  passage  "  Behold,  a  place  (makom)  is 
with  me  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  26),  viz.,  a  certain  degree  of  contemplation  and  in- 
tellectual intuition  (not  of  ocular  inspection),  in  addition  to  its  literal  mean- 
ling  "  a  place,"  viz.,  the  mountain  which  was  pointed  out  to  Moses  for  seclu- 
sion and  for  the  attainment  of  perfection. 

CHAPTER   IX 

The  original  meaning  of  the  word  ktsse,  "  throne,"  requires  no  comment. 
Since  men  of  greatness  and  authority,  as,  e.g.,  kings,  use  the  throne  as  a  seat, 
and  "  the  throne  "  thus  indicates  the  rank,  dignity,  and  position  of  the  person 
for  whom  it  is  made,  the  Sanctuary  has  been  styled  "  the  throne,"  inasmuch 
as  it  likewise  indicates  the  superiority  of  Him  who  manifests  Himself,  and 
causes  His  light  and  glory  to  dwell  therein.  Comp.  "  A  glorious  throne  on 
high  from  the  beginning  is  the  place  of  our  sanctuary"  (Jer.  xvii.12).  For 
the  same  reason  the  heavens  are  called  "  throne,"  for  to  the  mind  of  him  who 
observes  them  with  intelligence  they  suggest  the  Omnipotence  of  the  Being 
which  has  called  them  into  existence,  regulates  their  motions,  and  governs 
the  sublunary  world  by  their  beneficial  influence  :  as  we  read,  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  The  heavens  are  my  throne  and  the  earth  my  footstool  "  (Isa. 
Ixvi.  l)  ;  i.e.,  they  testify  to  my  Existence,  my  Essence,  and  my  Omnipo- 
tence, as  the  throne  testifies  to  the  greatness  of  him  who  is  worthy  to 
occupy  it. 

This  is  the  idea  which  true  believers  should  entertain  ;  not,  however,  that 
the  Omnipotent,  Supreme  God  is  supported  by  any  material  object ;  for 
God  is  incorporeal,  as  we  shall  prove  further  on  ;  how,  then,  can  He  be  said 
to  occupy  any  space,  or  rest  on  a  body  f  The  fact  which  I  wish  to  point  out 
is  this  :  every  place  distinguished  by  the  Almighty,  and  chosen  to  receive 
His  light  and  splendour,  as,  for  instance,  the  Sanctuary  or  the  Heavens,  is 
termed  "  throne  "  ;  and,  taken  in  a  wider  sense,  as  in  the  passage  "  For  my 
hand  is  upon  the  throne  of  God  "  (Exod.  xvii,  16),  "  the  throne  "  denote3 


22  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

here  the  Essence  and  Greatness  of  God.  These,  however  (the  Essence 
and  Greatness  of  God)  need  not  be  considered  as  something  separate  from 
the  God  Himself  or  as  part  of  the  Creation,  so  that  God  would  appear  to 
have  existed  both  without  the  throne,  and  with  the  throne  ;  such  a  belief 
would  be  undoubtedly  heretical.  It  is  distinctly  stated,  "  Thou,  O  Lord, 
remainest  for  ever ;  Thy  throne  from  generation  to  generation  "  (Lam. 
V.  19).  By  "  Thy  throne  "  we  must,  therefore,  understand  something  in- 
separable from  God.  On  that  account,  both  here  and  in  all  similar  passages, 
the  word  "  throne  "  denotes  God's  Greatness  and  Essence,  which  are  in- 
separable from  His  Being. 

Our  opinion  will  be  further  elucidated  in  the  course  of  this  Treatise. 

CHAPTER   X 

We  have  already  remarked  that  when  we  treat  in  this  work  of  homonyms, 
we  have  not  the  intention  to  exhaust  the  meanings  of  a  word  (for  this  is  not  a 
philological  treatise)  ;  we  shall  mention  no  other  significations  but  those 
which  bear  on  our  subject.  We  shall  thus  proceed  in  our  treatment  of  the 
terms  'alah  and  yarad. 

These  two  words,  'alah,  "he  went  up,"  and  yarad,  "  he  went  down,"  are 
Hebrew  terms  used  in  the  sense  of  ascending  and  descending.  When 
a  body  moves  from  a  higher  to  a  lower  place,  the  verb  yarad,  "  to  go 
down,"  is  used  ;  when  it  moves  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  place,  'alah^ 
"  to  go  up,"  is  applied.  These  two  verbs  were  afterwards  employed 
with  regard  to  greatness  and  power.  When  a  man  falls  from  his  high  posi- 
tion, we  say  "  he  has  come  down,"  and  when  he  rises  in  station  "  he  has  gone 
up."  Thus  the  Almighty  says,  "  The  stranger  that  is  within  thee  shall  get 
up  above  thee  very  high,  and  thou  shalt  come  down  very  low  "  (Deut.  xxviii. 
43).  Again,  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  set  thee  on  high  ('elyon)  above  all 
nations  of  the  earth  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  i)  :  "  And  the  Lord  magnified  Solomon 
exceedingly "  (lema'alah)  (l  Chron.  xxix.  25).  The  Sages  often  employ 
these  expressions,  as :  "  In  holy  matters  men  must  ascend  (rna'alin)  and  not 
descend  {moridin)."  The  two  words  are  also  applied  to  intellectual  pro- 
cesses, namely,  when  we  reflect  on  something  beneath  ourselves  we  are  said 
to  go  down,  and  when  our  attention  is  raised  to  a  subject  above  us  we  are 
said  to  rise. 

Now,  we  occupy  a  lowly  position,  both  in  space  and  rank  in  comparison 
with  the  heavenly  sphere,  and  the  Almighty  is  Most  High  not  in  space,  but 
with  respect  to  absolute  existence,  greatness  and  power.  When  it  pleased 
the  Almighty  to  grant  to  a  human  being  a  certain  degree  of  wisdom  or  pro- 
phetic inspiration,  the  divine  communication  thus  made  to  the  prophet  and 
the  entrance  of  the  Divine  Presence  into  a  certain  place  is  termed  {yeridah), 
"  descending,"  while  the  termination  of  the  prophetic  communication  or  the 
departure  of  the  divine  glory  from  a  place  is  called  'aliyah,  "  ascending." 

The  expressions  "  to  go  up  "  and  "  to  go  down,"  when  used  in  reference  to 
God,  must  be  interpreted  in  this  sense.  Again,  when,  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  will,  some  misfortune  befalls  a  nation  or  a  region  of  the  earth,  and 
when  the  biblical  account  of  that  misfortune  is  preceded  by  the  statement 
that  the  Almighty  visited  the  actions  of  the  people,  and  that  He  punished 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE   BIBLE  23 

them  accordingly,  then  the  prophetic  author  employs  the  term  "  to  descend  "  : 
for  man  is  so  low  and  insignificant  that  his  actions  would  not  be  visited  and 
would  not  bring  punishment  on  him,  were  it  not  for  the  divine  will  :  as  is 
clearly  stated  in  the  Bible,  with  regard  to  tliis  idea,  "  What  is  man  that  thou 
shouldst  remember  him,  and  the  son  of  man  that  thou  shouldst  visit  him  " 
(Ps.  viii.  5). 

The  design  of  the  Deity  to  punish  man  is,  therefore,  introduced  by  the 
verb  "  to  descend  "  ;  comp.  "  Go  to,  let  us  go  down  and  there  confound 
their  language  "  (Gen.  xi.  7)  ;  "  And  the  Lord  came  down  to  see  "  (Gen.  xi. 
5)  ;  "I  will  go  down  now  and  see  "  (Gen.  xviii.  21).  All  these  instances 
convey  the  idea  that  man  here  below  is  going  to  be  punished. 

More  numerous,  however,  are  the  instances  of  the  first  case,  viz.,  in  which 
these  verbs  are  used  in  connection  with  the  revelation  of  the  word  and  of  the 
glory  of  God,  e.g.,  "  And  I  will  come  down  and  talk  with  thee  there  "  (Num. 
xi.  17)  ;  "  And  the  Lord  came  down  upon  Mount  Sinai  "  (Exod.  xix.  20)  ; 
"  The  Lord  will  come  down  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people  "  (Exod.  xix.  11)  ; 
"  And  God  went  up  from  him  "  (Gen.  xxxv.  13)  ;  "  And  God  went  up  from 
Abraham  "  (Gen.  xvii.  22).  When,  on  the  other  hand,  it  says,  "  And  Moses 
went  up  unto  God  "  (Exod.  xix.  3),  it  must  be  taken  in  the  third  signification 
of  these  verbs,  in  addition  to  its  literal  meaning  that  Moses  also  ascended  to 
the  top  of  the  mount,  upon  which  a  certain  material  light  (the  manifestation 
of  God's  glory)  was  visible  ;  but  we  must  not  imagine  that  the  Supreme 
Being  occupies  a  place  to  which  we  can  ascend,  or  from  which  we  can  descend. 
He  is  far  from  what  the  ignorant  imagine. 


CHAPTER  XI 

The  primary  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  yashab  is  "  he  was  seated,"  as  "  Now 
Eli  the  priest  sat  (yashab)  upon  a  seat  "  (l  Sam.  i.  9)  ;  but,  since  a  person  can 
best  remain  motionless  and  at  rest  when  sitting,  the  term  was  applied  to 
everything  that  is  permanent  and  unchanging  ;  thus,  in  the  promise  that 
Jerusalem  should  remain  constantly  and  permanently  in  an  exalted  condition, 
it  is  stated,  "  She  will  rise  and  sit  in  her  place  "  (Zech.  xiv.  10)  ;  further, 
"  He  maketh  the  woman  who  was  childless  to  sit  as  a  joyful  mother  of  chil- 
dren "  (Ps.  cxiii.  9)  ;  i.e..  He  makes  her  happy  condition  to  be  permanent 
and  enduring. 

Whei  applied  to  God,  the  verb  is  to  be  taken  in  that  latter  sense: 
"  1  hou  O  Lord,  remainest  {tesheb)  for  ever  "  (Lam.  v.  19)  ;  "  O  thou 
who  sittest  (ha-yoshebi)  in  the  heavens  "  (Ps.  cxxiii.  l)  ;  "  He  who  sitteth 
in  the  heavens  "  (ii.  4),  i.e..  He  who  is  everlasting,  constant,  and  in  no 
way  subject  to  change  ;  immutable  in  His  Essence,  and  as  He  consists  of 
nought  but  His  Essence,  He  is  mutable  in  no  way  whatever  ;  not  mutable 
in  His  relation  to  other  things ;  for  there  is  no  relation  whatever  existing 
between  Him  and  any  other  being,  as  will  be  explained  below,  and  therefore 
no  change  as  regards  such  relations  can  take  place  in  Him.  Hence  He  is 
immutable  in  every  respect,  as  He  expressly  declares,  "  I,  the  Lord,  do  not 
change  ''  (Mai.  iii.  6)  ;  i.e.,  in  Me  there  is  not  any  change  whatever.  This 
idea  is  expressed  by  the  term  yashab  when  referring  to  God. 


24  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

The  verb,  when  employed  of  God,  is  frequently  complemented  by  "  the 
Heavens,"  inasmuch  as  the  heavens  are  without  change  or  mutation,  that  is 
to  say,  they  do  not  individually  change,  as  the  individual  beings  on  earth, 
bv  transition  from  existence  into  non-existence. 

The  verb  is  also  employed  in  descriptions  of  God's  relation  (the  term  "  re- 
lation "  is  here  used  as  a  homonym)  to  existing  species  of  evanescent  things ; 
for  those  species  are  as  constant,  well  organized,  and  unvarying  as  the  indi- 
viduals of  the  heavenly  hosts.  Thus  we  find,  "  Who  sitteth  over  the  circle 
of  the  earth  "  (Isa.  xl.  22),  Who  remains  constantly  and  unremittingly  over 
the  sphere  of  the  earth ;  that  is  to  say,  over  the  things  that  come  into 
existence  within  that  sphere. 

Again,  "  The  Lord  sitteth  upon  the  flood  "  (Ps.  xxix.  10),  i.e.,  despite  the 
change  and  variation  of  earthly  objects,  no  change  takes  place  with  respect 
to  God's  relation  (to  the  earth) :  His  relation  to  each  of  the  things  which 
come  into  existence  and  perish  again  is  stable  and  constant,  for  it  concerns 
only  the  existing  species  and  not  the  individuals.  It  should  therefore  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  whenever  the  term  "  sitting  "  is  applied  to  God,  it  is 
used  in  this  sense. 

CHAPTER   Xn 

The  term  kam  (he  rose)  is  a  homonym.  In  one  of  its  significations  it  is  the 
opposite  of  "  to  sit,"  as  "  He  did  not  rise  (kam)  nor  move  for  him  "  (Esth. 
V.  9).  It  further  denotes  the  confirmation  and  verification  of  a  thing,  e.g.  : 
"  The  Lord  will  verify  {yakem)  His  promise  "  (l  Sam.  i.  23) ;  "  The 
field  of  Ephron  was  made  sure  (va-yakom)  as  the  property  of  Abra- 
ham"  (Gen.  xiiii.  17).  "The  house  that  is  in  the  walled  city  shall  be 
established  {ve-kam)  "  (Lev.  xxv.  30)  ;  "  And  the  kingdom  of  Israel  shall  be 
firmly  established  {ve-kamah)  in  thy  hand  "  (l  Sam.  xxiv.  20).  It  is  always 
in  this  sense  that  the  verb  is  employed  with  reference  to  the  Almighty  ;  as 
"  Now  shall  I  rise  (akum),  saith  the  Lord  "  (Ps.  xii.  7),  which  is  the  same  as 
saying,  "  Now  shall  I  verify  my  word  and  my  dispensation  for  good  or  evil," 
"  Thou  shalt  arise  (takum)  and  have  mercy  upon  Zion  "  (Ps.  cii.  13),  which 
means  :  Thou  wilt  establish  what  thou  hast  promised,  viz.,  that  thou  wouldst 
pity  Zion. 

Generally  a  person  who  resolves  to  set  about  a  matter,  accompanies  his 
resolve  by  rising,  hence  the  verb  is  employed  to  express  "  to  resolve  "  to  do 
a  certain  thing  ;  as,  "  That  my  son  hath  stirred  up  my  servant  against  me  " 
(l  Sam.  xxii.  8).  The  word  is  figuratively  used  to  signify  the  execution  of  a 
divine  decree  against  a  people  sentenced  to  extermination,  as  "  And  I  will 
rise  against  the  house  of  Jeroboam  "  (Amos  vii.  9)  ;  "  but  he  will  arise  against 
the  house  of  the  evildoers  "  (Isa.  xxxi.  2).  Possibly  in  Psalm  xii.  7  the  verb 
has  this  latter  sense,  as  also  in  Psalm  cii.  13,  namely  :  Thou  wilt  rise  up 
against  her  enemies. 

There  arc  many  passages  to  be  interpreted  in  this  manner,  but  in  no  way 
should  it  be  understood  tliat  He  rises  or  sits — far  be  such  a  notion  !  Our 
Sages  expressed  this  idea  in  the  formula,  "  In  the  world  above  there  is  neither 
sitting  nor  standing  {'umidah)  "  ;  for  the  two  verbs  "■amad  and  kam  are  syn- 
onyms [and  what  is  said  about  the  former  is  also  applicable  to  the  latter]. 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    I'FIE    BIBLE  25 

CHAPTER   XIII 

The  term  'amad  (he  stood)  is  a  homonym  signifying  in  the  first  instance 
"  to  stand  upright,"  as  "  When  he  stood  (be-'omdo)  before  Pharaoh  "  (Gen. 
xH.  46)  ;  "  'fJiough  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  (ya'amod)  "  (Jer.  xv.  i)  ;  "  He 
stood  by  them  "  (Gen.  xviii.  8).  It  further  denotes  "  cessation  and  inter- 
ruption," as  "  but  they  stood  still  {'amedu)  and  answered  no  more  "  (Job 
xxxii.  16)  ;  "  and  she  ceased  (va-ta'amod)  to  bear  "  (Gen.  xxix.  35).  Next  it 
signifies  "  to  be  enduring  and  lasting,"  as,  "  that  they  may  continue  (yo- 
'amedu)  many  days  "  (Jer.  xxxii.  14)  ;  "  Then  shalt  thou  be  able  to  endure 
{'amod)  "  (Exod.  xviii.  23)  ;  "  His  taste  remained  {'amad)  in  him  "  (Jer. 
xlviii.  11),  i.e.,  it  has  continued  and  remained  in  existence  without  any 
change  ;  "  His  righteousness  standeth  for  ever  "  (Ps.  cxi.  3),  i.e.,  it  is  per- 
manent and  everlasting.  The  verb  applied  to  God  must  be  understood  in 
this  latter  sense,  as  in  Zechariah  xiv.  4,  "  And  his  feet  shall  stand  {ve-'amedu) 
in  that  day  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives  "  (Zech.  xiv.  4),  "  His  causes,  i.e.,  the 
events  of  which  He  is  the  cause,  will  remain  efficient,"  etc.  This  will  be 
further  elucidated  when  we  speak  of  the  meaning  of  regel  (foot).  {Vide  infra, 
chap,  xxviii.)  In  the  same  sense  is  this  verb  employed  in  Deuteronomy  v. 
28,  "  But  as  for  thee,  stand  thou  here  by  me,"  and  Deuteronomy  v.  5,  "  I 
stood  between  the  I,ord  and  you." 

CHAPTER   XIV 

The  homonymous  term  adam  is  in  the  first  place  the  name  of  the  first  man, 
being,  as  Scripture  indicates,  derived  from  adamah,  "earth."  Next,  it  means 
"  mankind,"  as  "  My  spirit  shall  not  strive  with  man  {adam)  "  (Gen.  vi.  3). 
Again  "  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  the  children  of  man  {adam)  "  (Eccles. 
iii.  21) ;  "  so  that  a  man  {adam)  has  no  pre-eminence  above  a  beast  "  (Eccles. 
iii.  19).  Adam  signifies  also  "  the  multitude,"  "  the  lower  classes "  as 
opposed  to  those  distinguished  from  the  rest,  as  "  Both  low  (bene  adam)  and 
high  {bene  ish)  "  (Ps.  xlix.  3). 

It  is  in  this  third  signification  that  it  occurs  in  the  verses,  "  The  sons  of  the 
higher  order  {Elohim)  saw  the  daughters  of  the  lower  order  {adam)  "  (Gen. 
vi.  2)  ;  and  "  Forsooth  !  as  the  humble  man  {adam)  you  shall  die  "  (Ps. 
Ixxxii.  7). 

CHAPTER   XV 

Although  the  two  roots  nazab  and  yazab  are  distinct,  yet  their  meaning  is, 
as  you  know,  identical  in  all  their  various  forms. 

The  verb  has  several  meanings :  in  some  instances  it  signifies  "  to  stand  " 
or  "  to  place  oneself,"  as  "  And  his  sister  stood  {va-tetazzab)  afar  ofl[  "  (Exod. 
ii.  4)  ;  "  The  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves  "  {yityazzebu)  (Ps.  ii.  2)  ; 
"  They  came  out  and  stood  "  {nizzabim)  (Num.  xvi.  27).  In  other  instances 
it  denotes  continuance  and  permanence,  as,  "  Thy  word  is  established  {nizzab) 
in  Heaven  "  (Ps.  cxix.  89),  i.e.,  it  remains  for  ever. 

Whenever  this  term  is  applied  to  God  it  must  be  understood  in  the  latter 
sense,  as,  "  And,  behold,  the  Lord  stood  {nizzab)  upon  it  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  13), 
i.e.,  appeared  as  eternal  and  everlasting  "  upon  it,"  namely,  upon  the  ladder, 


26  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  upper  end  of  which  reached  to  heaven,  while  the  lower  end  touched  the 
earth.  This  ladder  all  may  cHmb  up  who  wish  to  do  so,  and  they  must  ulti- 
mately attain  to  a  knowledge  of  Him  who  is  above  the  summit  of  the  ladder, 
because  He  remains  upon  it  permanently.  It  must  be  well  understood  that 
the  term  "  upon  it "  is  employed  by  me  in  harmony  with  this  metaphor. 
"  Angels  of  God  "  who  were  going  up  represent  the  prophets.  That  the 
term  "  angel  "  was  applied  to  prophets  may  clearly  be  seen  in  the  following 
passages :  "  He  sent  an  angel  "  (Num.  xx.  i6)  ;  "  And  an  angel  of  the  Lord 
came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim"  (Judges  ii.  l).  How  suggestive,  too,  is  the 
expression  "  ascending  and  descending  on  it  "  !  The  ascent  is  mentioned 
before  the  descent,  inasmuch  as  the  "  ascending  "  and  arriving  at  a  certain 
height  of  the  ladder  precedes  the  "  descending,"  i.e.,  the  application  of  the 
knowledge  acquired  in  the  ascent  for  the  training  and  instruction  of  mankind. 
This  application  is  termed  "  descent,"  in  accordance  with  our  explanation 
of  the  term  yarad  (chapter  x.). 

To  return  to  our  subject.  The  phrase  "  stood  upon  it  "  indicates  the 
permanence  and  constancy  of  God,  and  does  not  imply  the  idea  of  physical 
position.  This  is  also  the  sense  of  the  phrase  "  Thou  shalt  stand  upon  the 
rock  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  21).  It  is  therefore  clear  that  nizzab  and  'amad  are 
identical  in  this  figurative  signification.  Comp.  "  Behold,  I  will  stand 
{'OTtied)  before  thee  there  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb  "  (Exod.  xvii.  6)  . 


CHAPTER   XVI 

The  word  ztir  (rock)  is  a  homonym.  First,  it  denotes  "  rock,"  as  "  And  thou 
shalt  smite  the  rock  "  (zwr)  (Exod.  xvii.  6).  Then,  "  hard  stone,"  like  the 
flint,  e.g.,  "  Knives  of  stone  "  (zurini)  (Josh.  v.  2).  It  is  next  employed  to 
signify  the  quarry  from  which  the  stones  are  hewn  ;  comp.  "  Look  unto  the 
rock  (zur)  whence  ye  are  hewn"  (Isa.  li.  i).  From  this  latter  meaning  of  the 
term  another  figurative  notion  was  subsequently  derived,  viz.,  "  the  root  and 
origin  "  of  all  things.  It  is  on  this  account  that  after  the  words  "  Look  to 
the  rock  whence  ye  are  hewn,"  the  Prophet  continues,  "  Look  unto  Abraham 
your  father,"  from  which  we  evidently  may  infer  that  the  words  "  Abraham 
your  father  "  serve  to  explain  "  the  rock  whence  ye  are  hewn  "  ;  and  that  the 
Prophet  meant  to  say,  "  Walk  in  his  ways,  put  faith  in  his  instruction,  and 
conduct  yourselves  according  to  the  rule  of  his  life  !  for  the  properties  con- 
tained in  the  quarry  should  be  found  again  in  those  things  which  are 
formed  and  hewn  out  of  it." 

It  is  in  the  latter  sense  that  the  Almighty  is  called  "  rock,"  He  being  the 
origin  and  the  causa  efficiens  of  all  things  besides  Himself.  Thus  we  read, 
"  He  is  the  Rock,  His  work  is  perfect  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  4)  ;  "  Of  the  Rock  that 
begat  thee  thou  art  unmindful  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  18)  ;  "  Their  Rock  had  sold 
them  "  (xxxi.  30)  ;  "  There  is  no  rock  like  our  God  "  (i  Sam.  ii.  2)  :  "  The 
Rock  of  Paternity  "  (Isa.  xxvi.  4).  Again,  "  And  thou  shalt  stand  upon  the 
Rock  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  21),  i.e..  Be  firm  and  steadfast  in  the  conviction  that 
God  is  the  source  of  all  things,  for  this  will  lead  you  towards  the  knowledge 
of  the  Divine  Being.  We  have  shown  (chap,  viii.)  that  the  words  "  Behold, 
a  place  is  with  me  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  21)  contain  the  same  idea. 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  27 

CHAPTER   XVII 

Do  not  imagine  tliat  only  Metaphysics  should  be  taught  with  reserve  to  the 
common  people  and  to  the  uninitiated  ;  for  the  same  is  also  the  case  with  the 
greater  part  of  Natural  Science.  In  this  sense  we  have  repeatedly  made  use 
of  the  expression  of  the  Sages,  "  Do  not  expound  the  chapter  on  the  Creation 
in  the  presence  of  two "  [ciWi?  Introd.  page  2].  This  principle  was  not 
peculiar  to  our  Sages ;  ancient  philosophers  and  scholars  of  other  nations 
were  likewise  wont  to  treat  of  the  principia  rerutn  obscurely,  and  to  use  figura- 
tive language  in  discussing  such  subjects.  Thus  Plato  and  his  predecessors  called 
Substance  the  female,  and  Form  the  male.  (You  are  aware  that  the  principia 
of  all  existing  transient  things  are  three,  viz.,  Substance,  Form,  and  Absence 
of  a  particular  form  ;  the  last-named  principle  is  always  inherent  in  the  sub- 
stance, for  otherwise  the  substance  would  be  incapable  of  receiving  a  new 
form  ;  and  it  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  absence  [of  a  particular  form]  is 
included  among  the  principia.  As  soon,  then,  as  a  substance  has  received  a 
certain  form,  the  privation  of  that  form,  namely,  of  that  which  has  just  been 
received,  has  ceased,  and  is  replaced  by  the  privation  of  another  form,  and 
so  on  with  all  possible  forms,  as  is  explained  in  treatises  on  natural  philosophy.) 
— Now,  if  those  philosophers  who  have  nothing  to  fear  from  a  lucid  explana- 
tion of  these  metaphysical  subjects  still  were  in  the  habit  of  discussing  them 
in  figures  and  metaphors,  how  much  more  should  we,  having  the  interest  of 
religion  at  heart,  refrain  from  elucidating  to  the  mass  any  subject  that  is  be- 
yond their  comprehension,  or  that  might  be  taken  in  a  sense  directly  opposite 
to  the  one  intended.     This  also  deserves  attention. 

CHAPTER   XVIII 

The  three  words  karab,  "  to  come  near,"  naga',  "  to  touch,"  and  nagash,  "to 
approach,"  sometimes  signify  "  contact  "  or  "  nearness  in  space,"  sometimes 
the  approach  of  man's  knowledge  to  an  object,  as  if  it  resembled  the  physical 
approach  of  one  body  to  another.  As  to  the  use  of  karab  in  the  first  meaning, 
viz.,  to  draw  near  a  certain  spot,  comp.  "  As  he  drew  near  (karab)  the  camp  " 
(Exod.  xxxii.  19)  ;  "  And  Pharaoh  drew  near  (hikrib)  (Exod.  xiv.  10).  Naga', 
in  the  first  sense,  viz.,  expressing  the  contact  of  two  bodies,  occurs  in  "  And 
she  cast  it  (ya-tagga')  at  his  feet  "  (Exod.  iv.  25)  ;  "  He  caused  it  to  touch 
(va-yagga'-)  my  mouth  "  (Isa.  vi.  7).  And  nagash  in  the  first  sense,  viz.,  to 
approach  or  move  towards  another  person,  is  found,  e.g.,  in  "  And  Judah 
drew  near  (va-yiggash)  unto  him  "  (Gen.  xliv.  l). 

The  second  meaning  of  these  three  words  is  "  approach  by  means  of  know- 
ledge," or  "  contact  by  comprehension,"  not  in  reference  to  space.  As  to 
naga'  in  this  seecond  sense,  comp.  "  for  her  judgment  reacheth  (naga')  unto 
heaven  "  (Jer.  li.  9).  An  instance  of  karab  being  used  in  this  meaning  is 
contained  in  the  following  passage,  "  And  the  cause  that  is  too  hard  for  you, 
bring  (takribun)  it  unto  me  "  (Deut.  i.  17)  ;  this  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "  Ye 
shall  make  it  known  unto  me."  The  verb  karab  (in  the  Hiphil)  is  thus  em- 
ployed in  the  sense  of  giving  information  concerning  a  thing.  The  verb 
nagash  is  used  figuratively  in  the  phrase,  "  And  Abraham  drew  near  (va- 
yiggash),  and  said  "  (Gen.  xviii.  23) ;  this  took  place  in  a  prophetic  vision  and 


28  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

in  a  trance,  as  will  be  explained  (Part  I.  chap,  xxi.,  and  Part  II.  chap,  xli.; 
also  in  "  Forasmuch  as  this  people  draw  near  {niggash)  me  with  their  mouths 
and  with  their  lips  "  (Isa.  xxix.  13).  Wherever  a  word  denoting  approach 
or  contact  is  employed  in  the  prophetic  writings  to  describe  a  certain  relation 
between  the  Almighty  and  any  created  being,  it  has  to  be  understood  in  this 
latter  sense  [viz.,  to  approach  mentally].  For,  as  will  be  proved  in  this  trea- 
tise (II.  chap,  iv.),  the  Supreme  is  incorporeal,  and  consequently  He  does  not 
approach  or  draw  near  a  thing,  nor  can  aught  approach  or  touch  Him  ;  for 
when  a  being  is  without  corporeality,  it  cannot  occupy  space,  and  all  idea 
of  approach,  contact,  distance,  conjunction,  separation,  touch,  or  proximity 
is  inapplicable  to  such  a  being. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  respecting  the  verses  "  The  Lord  is  nigh  (karob) 
unto  all  them  that  call  upon  him  "  (Ps.  cxlv.  18)  ;  "  They  take  delight  in 
approaching  (kirbat)  to  God  "  (Isa.  Iviii.  2)  ;  "  The  nearness  {kirbat)  of 
God  is  pleasant  to  me  "  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  28)  ;  all  such  phrases  intimate  a  spiritual 
approach,  i.e.,  the  attainment  of  some  knowledge,  not,  however,  approach 
in  space.  Thus  also  "  who  hath  God  so  nigh  (kerobim)  unto  him  "  (Deut. 
iv.  7)  ;  "  Draw  thou  near  (kerab)  and  hear  "  (Deut.  v.  27)  ;  "  And  Moses 
alone  shall  draw  near  {ve-niggash)  the  Lord  ;  but  they  shall  not  come  nigh 
(yiggashu)  "  (Exod.  xxi  v.  2). 

If,  however,  you  wish  to  take  the  words  "  And  Moses  shall  draw  near  "  to 
mean  that  he  shall  draw  near  a  certain  place  in  the  mountain,  whereon  the 
Divine  Light  shone,  or,  in  the  words  of  the  Bible,  "  where  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  abode,"  you  may  do  so,  provided  you  do  not  lose  sight  of  the  truth  that 
there  is  no  difference  whether  a  person  stand  at  the  centre  of  the  earth  or  at 
the  highest  point  of  the  ninth  sphere,  if  this  were  possible  ;  he  is  no  further 
away  from  God  in  the  one  case,  or  nearer  to  Him  in  the  other  ;  those  only 
approach  Him  who  obtain  a  knowledge  of  Him  ;  while  those  who  remain 
ignorant  of  Him  recede  from  Him.  In  this  approach  towards,  or  recession 
from  God  there  are  numerous  grades  one  above  the  other,  and  I  shall  further 
elucidate,  in  one  of  the  subsequent  chapters  of  the  Treatise  (I.  chap.  Ix.,  and 
II.  chap,  xxxvi.)  what  constitutes  the  difference  in  our  perception  of  God. 

In  the  passage,  "  Touch  (pa'-)  the  mountains,  and  they  shall  smoke  " 
(Ps.  cxliv.  5),  the  verb  "  touch  "  is  used  in  a  figurative  sense,  viz.,  "  Let  thy 
word  touch  them."  So  also  the  words,  "  Touch  thou  him  himself  "  (Job 
ii.  5).  have  the  same  meaning  as  "  Bring  thy  infliction  upon  him."  In  a 
similar  manner  must  this  verb,  in  whatever  form  it  may  be  employed,  be 
interpreted  in  each  place,  according  to  the  context ;  for  in  some  cases  it 
denotes  contact  of  two  material  objects,  in  others  knowledge  and  compre- 
hension of  a  thing,  as  if  he  who  now  comprehends  anything  which  he  had  not 
comprehended  previously  had  thereby  approached  a  subject  which  had  been 
distant  from  him.     This  point  is  of  considerable  importance. 

CHAPTER   XIX 

f 

The  term  male  is  a  homonym  which  denotes  that  one  substance  enters 
another,  and  fills  it,  as  "  And  she  filled  {va-temalle)  her  pitcher  "  (Gen.  xxiv. 
16)  ;  "  An  omer-fuU  {melo)  for  each  "  (Exod.  xvi.  32),  and  many  other 
instances.     Next,  it  signifies  the  expiration  or  completion  of  a  fixed  period 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  29 

of  time,  as  "  And  when  her  days  to  be  delivered  were  fulfilled  (ya-yimleU)  ' 
(Gen.  ixv.  24)  ;    "  And  forty  days  were  completed  (ya-yimleU)  for    him  ' 
(Gen,  1.  3).     It  further  denotes  attainment  of  the  highest  degree  of  excel- 
lency, as  "  Full  {male)  with  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  "  (Deut.  xixiii.  23)  . 
"  Them  hath  he  filled  {mille)  with  wisdom  of  heart  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  35)  ;  "  He 
was  filled  {va-yimmale)  with  wisdom,  and  understanding,  and  cunning " 
(l  Kings  vii.  14).     In  this  sense  it  is  said  "  The  whole  earth  is  full  (meh)  of 
his  glory  "  (Isa.  vi.  4),  "  All  the  earth  gives  evidence  of  his  perfection," 
i.e.  leads   to  a  knowledge  of   it.     Thus  also  "  The  glory  of  the  Lord  filled 
{male)  the  tabernacle  "  (Exod.  xl.  34)  ;   and,  in  fact,  every  application  of  the 
word  to  God  must  be  interpreted  in  this  manner  ;    and  not  that  He  has  a 
body  occupying  space.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  you  prefer  to  think  that  in 
this  passage  by  "  the  glory  of  the  Lord,"  a  certain  light  created  for  the  pur- 
pose is  to  be  understood,  that  such  light  is  always  termed  "  glory,"  and  that 
such  light  "  filled  the  tabernacle,"  we  have  no  objection. 


CHAPTER  XX 

The  word  ram  (high)  is  a  homonym,  denoting  elevation  in  space,  and  elevation 
in  dignity,  i.e.,  greatness,  honour,  and  power.  It  has  the  first  meaning  in 
"  And  the  ark  was  lifted  up  (va-tarom)  above  the  earth  "  (Gen  vii.  17)  ;  and 
the  latter  meaning  in  "  I  have  exalted  (harimoti)  one  chosen  out  of  the 
people  "  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  20 ;  "  Forasmuch  as  I  have  exalted  (harimoti)  thee  from 
amongst  the  dust  "  (r  Kings  xvi.  2)  ;  "  Forasmuch  as  I  exalted  {harimoti) 
thee  from  among  the  people  "  (i  Kings  xiv.  7). 

Whenever  this  term  is  employed  in  reference  to  God,  it  must  be  taken  in 
the  second  sense  :  "  Be  thou  exalted  {rumah),  O  God,  above  the  heavens  " 
(Ps.  Ivii.  12).  In  the  same  manner  does  the  root  nasa  (to  lift  up)  denote  both 
elevation  in  space  and  elevation  in  rank  and  dignity.  In  the  former  sense  it  occurs 
in  "And  they  lifted  up  {va-yisseli)  their  corn  upon  their  asses"  (Gen.  xlii. 
26)  ;  and  there  are  many  instances  like  this  in  which  this  verb  has  the  mean- 
ing "  to  carry,"  "  to  move  "  from  place  to  place  ;  for  this  implies  elevation 
in  space.  In  the  second  sense  we  have  "  And  his  kingdom  shall  be  exalted  " 
{ve-tinnase)  (Num.  xxiv.  7)  ;  "  And  he  bare  them,  and  carried  them  " 
{va-yenasseUm)  (Isa.  Ixiii.  9)  ;  "  Wherefore  do  ye  exalt  yourselves  "  (titnasseu) 
(Num.  xvi.  3). 

Every  form  of  this  verb  when  applied  to  God  has  this  latter  sense — e.g., 
"  Lift  up  thyself  {hittnase),  thou  judge  of  the  earth  "  (Ps.  xciv.  2)  ;  "  Thus 
saith  the  High  {ram)  and  Ex.ilted  {nis^a)  One  "  (Isa.  Ivii.  15) — denoting  eleva- 
tion in  rank,  quality,  and  power,  and  not  elevation  in  space. 

You  may  be  surprised  that  I  employ  the  expression,  "  elevation  in  rank, 
quality,  and  power,"  and  you  may  say,  "  How  can  you  assert  that  several 
distinct  expressions  denote  the  same  thing  ?  "  It  will  be  explained  later  on 
(chap.  1.  seqq.)  that  those  who  possess  a  true  knowledge  of  God  do  not  con- 
sider that  He  possesses  many  attributes,  but  believe  that  these  various  attri- 
butes which  describe  His  Might,  Greatness,  Power,  Perfection,  Goodness, 
etc.,  are  ir'cntical,  denoting  His  Essence,  and  not  anything  extraneous  to  His 
Essence.     I  shall  devote  special  chapters  to  the  Names  and  Attributes  of 


30  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

God  ;  our  intention  here  is  solely  to  show  that  "  high  and  exalted  "  in  the 
passage  quoted  denote  elevation  in  rank,  not  in  space. 

CHAPTER    XXI 

In  its  primary  signification  the  Hebrew  'abar,"  to  pass,"  refers  to  the  motion 
of  a  body  in  space,  and  is  chiefly  applied  to  living  creatures  moving  at  some 
distance  in  a  straight  line,  e.g.,  "  And  He  passed  over  {'abar)  before  them  " 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  3) ;  "  Pass  ('abor)  before  the  people  "  (Exod,  xvii.  5).  Instances 
of  this  kind  are  numerous.  The  verb  was  next  applied  to  the  passage  of 
sound  through  air,  as  "  And  they  caused  a  sound  to  pass  {va-ya'abiru)  through- 
out the  camp  "  (Exod.  xxxvi.  6)  ;  "  That  I  hear  the  Lord's  people  spreading 
the  report  "  (ma'abirim)  (l  Sam.  ii.  24). 

Figuratively  it  denoted  the  appearance  of  the  Light  and  the  Divine  Pre- 
sence (Shechinah)  which  the  prophets  perceived  in  their  prophetic  visions, 
as  it  is  said,"  And  behold  a  smoking  furnace,  and  a  burning  lamp  that  passed 
(^•abar)  between  those  pieces  "  (Gen.  xv.  17).  This  took  place  in  a  prophetic 
vision,  for  the  narrative  commences,  "  And  a  deep  sleep  fell  upon  Abram." 
The  verb  has  this  latter  meaning  in  Exodus  xii.  12,  "  And  I  shall  pass  (ve- 
'aharti)  through  the  land  of  Egypt  "  (denoting  "  I  shall  reveal  myself,"  etc.), 
and  in  all  similar  phrases. 

The  verb  is  next  employed  to  express  that  a  person  has  gone  too  far,  and 
transgressed  the  usual  limit,  in  the  performance  of  some  act,  as  "  And  as  a 
man  who  is  drinking  wine  has  passed  ('abarv)  the  proper  limit  "  (Jer.  xxiii,  9). 

It  is  also  used  figuratively  to  denote :  to  abandon  one  aim,  and  turn 
to  a  different  aim  and  object,  e.g.,  "  He  shot  an  arrow,  causing  it  to 
miss  the  aim  {leha'abiro)  "  (l  Sam.  xx.  36).  This  is  the  sense,  it  appears 
to  me,  of  this  verb  in  "  And  the  Lord  passed  by  (va-ya'abor)  before  his 
face "  (Exod.  xxxiv.  6).  I  take  "  his  face "  to  mean  "  the  face  of 
God  "  ;  our  Teachers  likewise  interpreted  "  his  face  "  as  being  identical  with 
"  the  face  of  God."  And,  although  this  is  found  in  the  midst  of  Agadic 
interpretations  which  would  be  out  of  place  in  this  our  work,  yet  it  is  some 
support  of  our  view,  that  the  pronoun  "  his  "  is  employed  in  this  passage  as 
a  substitute  for  "  God's  " — and  the  whole  passage  could  in  my  opinion  be 
explained  as  follows :  Moses  sought  to  attain  to  a  certain  perception  which 
is  called  "  the  perception  of  the  Divine  face,"  a  term  occurring  in  the 
phrase  "  My  face  cannot  be  seen  "  ;  but  God  vouchsafed  to  him  a  percep- 
tion of  a  lower  degree,  viz.,  the  one  called,  "  the  seeing  of  the  back," 
in  the  words,  "  And  thou  shalt  sec  my  back  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  23).  We 
have  mentioned  this  subject  in  our  work  Mishneh  Torah.  Accordingly,  it 
is  stated  in  the  above-mentioned  passage  that  the  Lord  withheld  from  Moses 
that  perception  which  is  termed  "  the  seeing  of  the  Divine  face,"  and  sub- 
stituted for  it  another  gift,  viz.,  the  knowledge  of  the  acts  attributed  to  God, 
which,  as  I  shall  explain  (chap,  liv.)  are  considered  to  be  different  and 
separate  attributes  of  the  Supreme.  In  asserting  that  God  withheld  from 
Moses  (the  higher  knowledge)  I  mean  to  say  that  this  knowledge  was  un- 
attainable, that  by  its  nature  it  was  inaccessible  to  Moses ;  for  man,  whilst 
able^'.to  gain  perfection  by  applying  his  reasoning  faculties  to  the  attainment 
of  what  is  within  the  reach  of  his  intellect,  either  weakens  his  reason  or  loses 


ON   EXODUS   XXIV.    6  31 

it  altogether  as  soon  as  he  ventures  to  seek  a  higher  degree  of  knowledge — 
as  I  shall  elucidate  in  one  of  the  chapters  of  this  work — unless  he  be  granted 
a  special  aid  from  heaven,  as  is  described  in  the  words,  "  And  I  will  cover 
thee  with  my  hand  until  I  pass  by  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  23). 

Onkelos,  in  translating  this  verse,  adopts  the  same  method  which  he  applies 
to  the  explanation  of  similar  passages,  viz.,  every  expression  implying  cor- 
poreality or  corporal  properties,  when  referring  to  God,  he  explains  by 
assuming  an  ellipsis  of  a  nomen  regens  before  "  God,"  thus  connecting  the 
expression  (of  corporeality)  with  another  word  which  is  supplied,  and  which 
governs  the  genitive  "  God  "  ;  e.g.,  "  And  behold  the  Lord  stood  upon  it  " 
(Gen.  xxviii.  13),  he  explains,  "  The  glory  of  the  Lord  stood  arrayed  above 
it."  Again,  "  The  Lord  watch  between  me  and  thee  "  (Gen.  xxxi.  49),  he 
paraphrases,"  The  word  of  the  Lord  shall  watch."  This  is  his  ordinary  method 
in  explaining  Scripture.  He  applies  it  also  to  Exod.  xxxiv.  6,  which  he  para- 
phrases, "  The  Lord  caused  his  Presence  to  pass  before  his  face  and  called." 
According  to  this  rendering  the  thing  which  passed  was  unquestionably 
some  physical  object,  the  pronoun  "  his  "  refers  to  Moses,  and  the  phrase 
'al  fanav  is  identical  with  lefanav,  "  before  him."  Comp.  "  So  went  the 
present  over  before  him  "  {^al  panav)  (Gen.  xxxii.  22).  This  is  likewise  an 
appropriate  and  satisfactory  explanation  ;  and  I  can  adduce  still  further 
support  for  the  opinion  of  Onkelos  from  the  words  "  while  my  glory  passeth 
by  "  (ba-'abor)  (Exod.  xxxiii.  22),  which  expressly  state  that  the  passing  object 
was  something  ascribed  to  God,  not  God  Himself ;  and  of  this  Divine  glory 
it  is  also  said,  "  until  I  pass  by,"  and  "  And  the  Lord  passed  by  before  him." 

Should  it,  however,  be  considered  necessary  to  assume  here  an  ellipsis, 
according  to  the  method  of  Onkelos,  who  supplies  in  some  instances  the  term 
"  the  Glory,"  in  others  "  the  Word,"  and  in  others  "  the  Divine  Presence," 
as  the  context  may  require  in  each  particular  case,  we  may  also  supply  here 
the  word  "  voice,"  and  explain  the  passage,  "  And  a  voice  from  the  Lord 
passed  before  him  and  called."  We  have  already  shown  that  the  verb  'abar, 
"  he  passed,"  can  be  applied  to  the  voice,  as  in  "  And  they  caused  a  voice  to 
pass  through  the  camp  "  (Exod.  xxxvi.  6).  According  to  this  explanation, 
it  was  the  voice  which  called.  No  objection  can  be  raised  to  applying  the 
verb  kara  (he  called)  to  kol  (voice),  for  a  similar  phrase  occurs  in  the  Bible 
in  reference  to  God's  commands  to  Moses,  "  He  heard  the  voice  speaking 
unto  him  "  ;  and,  in  the  same  manner  as  it  can  be  said  "  the  voice  spoke," 
we  may  also  say  "  the  voice  called  "  ;  indeed,  we  can  even  support  this  appli- 
cation of  the  verbs  "  to  say,"  and  "  to  call,"  to  "  the  voice,"  by  parallel 
passages,  as  "  A  voice  saith  '  Cry,'  and  it  says '  What  shall  I  cry  ? '  "  (Isa.  xl.  6). 
According  to  this  view,  the  meaning  of  the  passage  under  discussion  would 
be  :  "A  voice  of  God  passed  before  him  and  called,  '  Eternal,  Eternal,  All- 
powerful,  iiMl-merciful,  and  All-gracious  !  '  "  (The  word  Eternal  is  repeated  ; 
it  is  in  the  vocative,  for  the  Eternal  is  the  one  who  is  called.  Comp.  Moses, 
Moses  !  Abraham,  Abraham  !)  This,  again,  is  a  very  appropriate  explana- 
tion of  the  text. 

You  will  surely  not  find  it  strange  that  this  subject,  so  profound  and  diffi- 
cult, should  bear  various  interpretations  ;  for  it  will  not  impair  the  force  of 
the  argument  with  which  we  arc  here  concerned.  Either  explanation  may 
be  adopted  ;  you  may  take  that  grand  scene  altogether  as  a  prophetic  vision. 


32  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

and  the  whole  occurrence  as  a  mental  operation,  and  consider  that  what 
Moses  sought,  what  was  withheld  from  him,  and  what  he  attained,  were 
things  perceived  by  the  intellect  without  the  use  of  the  senses  (as  we  have 
explained  above)  :  or  you  may  assume  that  in  addition  there  was  a  certain 
ocular  perception  of  a  material  object,  the  sight  of  which  would  assist  intel- 
lectual perception.  The  latter  is  the  view  of  Onkelos,  unless  he  assumes  that 
in  this  instance  the  ocular  perception  was  likewise  a  prophetic  vision,  as  was 
the  case  with  "  a  smoking  furnace  and  a  burning  lamp  that  passed  between 
those  pieces  "  (Gen.  xv.  17),  mentioned  in  the  history  of  Abraham.  You 
may  also  assume  that  in  addition  there  was  a  perception  of  sound,  and  that 
there  was  a  voice  which  passed  before  him,  and  was  undoubtedly  something 
material.  You  may  choose  either  of  these  opinions,  for  our  sole  intention 
and  purpose  is  to  guard  you  against  the  belief  that  the  phrase  "  and  the  Lord 
passed,"  is  analogous  to  "  pass  before  the  people  "  (Exod.  xvii.  5),  for  God, 
being  incorporeal,  cannot  be  said  to  move,  and  consequently  the  verb  "  to 
pass "  cannot  with  propriety  be  applied  to  Him  in  its  primary  signification. 

CHAPTER  XXn 

In  Hebrew,  the  verb  bo  signifies  "  to  come  "  as  applied  to  a  living  being,  i.e., 
its  arrival  at  a  certain  place,  or  approach  to  a  certain  person,  as  "  Thy  brother 
came  (ba)  with  subtilty  "  (Gen.  xxvii.  35).  It  next  denotes  (with  regard  to 
a  living  being)  "  to  enter  "  a  certain  place,  e.g.,  "  And  when  Joseph  came 
(va-yabo)  into  the  house  "  (Gen.  xliii.  26)  ;  "  When  ye  come  (ta-bou)  into 
the  land  "  (Exod.  xii.  25).  The  term  was  also  employed  metaphorically  in 
the  sense  of  "  to  come  "  applied  to  a  certain  event,  that  is,  to  something  in- 
corporeal, as  "  When  thy  sayings  come  to  pass  (yabo)  "  (Judg.  xiii.  17)  ;  "  Of 
that  which  will  come  (yabou)  over  thee"  (Isa.  xlvii.  13).  Nay,  it  is  even 
applied  to  privatives,  e.g.,  "  Yet  evil  came  {va-yabo)  "  (Job  iii.  26)  ;  "  And 
darkness  came  {va-yabo)  "  Now,  since  the  word  has  been  applied  to  incor- 
poreal things,  it  has  also  been  used  in  reference  to  God — to  the  fulfilment  of 
His  word,  or  to  the  manifestation  of  His  Presence  (the  Shechinah).  In  this 
figurative  sense  it  is  said,  "  Lo,  I  come  {ba)  unto  thee  in  a  thick  cloud  " 
(Exod.  xix.  9)  ;  "  For  the  Lord  the  God  of  Israel  cometh  {ha)  through  it  " 
(Ezek.  xliv.  2).  In  these  and  all  similar  passages,  the  coming  of  the  Sliechinah 
is  meant,  but  the  words,  "  And  the  Lord  my  God  shall  come  {u-ba)  "  (Zech. 
xiv.  5)  are  identical  with  "  His  word  will  come,"  that  is  to  say,  the  promises 
which  He  made  through  the  Prophets  will  be  fulfilled  ;  therefore  Scripture 
adds  "  all  the  holy  ones  that  are  with  thee,"  that  is  to  say,  "  The  word  of  the 
Lord  my  God  will  be  performed,  which  has  been  spoken  by  pU  the  holy  ones 
who  are  with  thee,  who  address  the  Israelites." 
• 

CHAPTER   XXIII 

Taxa  ("  he  came  out ")  is  the  opposite  of  ba  ("  he  came  in  ").  The  term  yaza 
is  applied  to  the  motion  of  a  body  from  a  place  in  which  it  had  previously 
rested,  to  another  place  (whether  the  body  be  a  living  being  or  not),  e.g., 
"  And  when  they  were  gone  out  {yazeli)  of  the  city  "  (Gen.  xliv.  4)  ;  "  If 
fire  break  out  {teze)  "  (Exod.  xxil.  s)-     It  was  then  figuratively  employed  to 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  33 

denote  the  appearance  of  something  incorporeal,  as,  "  The  word  went  out 
(yd?;a)  of  the  king's  mouth  "  (Esth.  vii.  8)  ;  "  When  this  deed  of  the  queen 
shall  come  abroad  (yeze)  unto  all  women  "  (Esth.  i.  17),  that  is  to  say,  "  the 
report  will  spread."  Again,  "  For  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  {teze)  the  Law  " 
(Isa.  ii.  3) ;  further,  "  The  sun  had  risen  {yaza)  upon  the  earth  "  (Gen.  xix, 
23),  i.e.,  its  light  became  visible. 

In  this  figurative  sense  we  must  take  every  expression  of  coming  out  when 
applied  to  the  Almighty,  e.g.,  "  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh  out  (yoz.e)  of  his 
place  "  (Isa.  xxvi.  21),  i.e.,  "  The  word  of  God,  which  until  now  has  been  in 
secret,  cometh  out,  and  will  become  manifest,"  i.e.,  something  will  come  into 
being  which  had  not  existed  before  ;  for  everything  new  emanating  from 
God  is  ascribed  to  His  word.  Comp.  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth  "  (Ps. 
ixxiii.  6).  This  is  a  simile  taken  from  the  conduct  of  kings,  who  employ  the 
word  as  the  means  of  carrying  their  will  into  effect.  God,  however,  requires 
no  instrument  wherewith  to  operate  in  order  to  perform  anything  ;  the  effect 
is  produced  solely  by  His  will  alone.  He  does  not  employ  any  kind  of  speech, 
as  will  be  explained  further  on  (chap.  Iv.). 

The  verb  "  to  come  out  "  is  thus  employed  to  designate  the  manifestation 
of  a  certain  work  of  God,  as  we  noticed  in  our  interpretation  of  the  phrase, 
"  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh  out  of  his  place."  In  a  similar  manner  the  term 
shub, "  to  return,"  has  been  figuratively  employed  to  denote  the  discontinu- 
ance of  a  certain  act  according  to  the  will  of  God,  as  in  "  I  will  go  and  return 
to  my  place  "  (Hosea  v.  15)  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Divine  presence  (Shechinah) 
which  had  been  in  our  midst  departed  from  us,  the  consequence  of  which  has 
been  the  absence  of  Divine  protection  from  amongst  us.  Thus  the  Prophet 
foretelling  misfortune  says,  "  And  I  will  hide  my  face  from  them,  and  they 
shall  be  devoured  "  (Deut.  xxxi.  17)  ;  for,  when  man  is  deprived  of  Divine 
protection  he  is  exposed  to  all  dangers,  and  becomes  the  butt  of  all  fortuitous 
circumstances ;  his  fortune  and  misfortune  then  depend  on  chance.  Alas ! 
how  terrible  a  threat ! — This  is  the  idea  contained  in  the  words,  "  I  will  go 
and  return  to  my  place  "  (Hos.  v,  15). 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

The  term  halak  is  likewise  one  of  the  words  which  denote  movements  per- 
formed by  living  beings,  as  in  "  And  Jacob  went  {halak)  on  his  way  "  (Gen. 
xxxii.  i),  and  in  many  other  instances.  The  verb  "  to  go  "  was  next  em- 
ployed in  describing  movements  of  objects  less  solid  than  the  bodies  of  living 
beings,  comp.  "  And  the  waters  were  going  on  {halok)  decreasing  "  (Gen. 
viii.  5)  ;  "  And  the  fire  went  along  (va-tihalak)  upon  the  ground  "  (Exod. 
ix.  23).  Then  it  was  employed  to  express  the  spreading  and  manifestation 
of  something  incorporeal,  comp.  "  The  voice  thereof  shall  go  like  a  serpent  " 
(Jer.  xlvi.  22)  ;  again,  "  The  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the  garden  " 
(Gen.  iii.  8).     It  is  "  the  voice  "  that  is  qualified  by  "  walking." 

Whenever  the  word  "  to  go  "  is  used  in  reference  to  God,  it  must  be  taken 
in  this  figurative  sense,  i.e.,  it  applies  to  incorporeal  things,  and  signifies 
either  the  manifestation  of  something  incorporeal,  or  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Divine  protection,  an  act  corresponding  in  lifeless  beings  to  the  removal  of 


34  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

a  thing,  in  living  beings  to  the  departure  of  a  living  being,  "  vpalking."  The 
withdrawal  of  God's  protection  is  called  in  the  Bible  "  the  hiding  of  God's 
countenance,  as  in  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  1 8,  "  As  for  me,  I  will  hide  my  coun- 
tenance." On  the  same  ground  it  has  been  designated  "  going  away,"  or 
moving  away  from  a  thing,  comp.  "  I  will  depart  and  return  to  my  place  " 
(Hos.  V.  15).  But  in  the  passage,  "  And  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled 
against  them,  and  he  went  "  (Num.  xii.  9),  the  two  meanings  of  the  verb  are 
combined,  viz.,  the  withdrawal  of  the  Divine  protection,  expressed  by  "  and 
he  went,"  and  the  revelation,  manifestation,  and  appearance  of  something 
namely,  of  the  anger  which  went  forth  and  reached  them,  in  consequence  of 
which  Miriam  became  "  leprous,  white  as  snow."  The  expression  "  to 
walk  "  was  further  applied  to  conduct,  which  concerns  only  the  inner  life, 
and  which  requires  no  bodily  motion,  as  in  the  following  passages,  "  And  thou 
shalt  walk  in  his  ways  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  9)  ;  "  Ye  shall  walk  after  the  Lord  your 
God  "  (Deut.  xiii.  5)  ;  "  Come  ye,  and  let  us  walk  in  the  light  of  the  Lord." 
(Isa.  ii.  5). 

CHAPTER   XXV 

The  Hebrew  shakan,  as  is  well  known,  signifies  "to  dwell,"  as,  "And  he 
was  dwelHng  {shaken)  in  the  plains  of  Mam  re  "  (Gen.  xiv.  13);  "And  it 
came  to  pass,  when  Israel  dwelt  {biskekon)  "  (Gen.  xxxv.  22).  This  is  the 
most  common  meaning  of  the  word.  But  "  dwelling  in  a  place  "  consists  in 
the  continued  stay  in  a  place,  general  or  special ;  when  a  living  being  dwells 
long  in  a  place,  we  say  that  it  stays  in  that  place,  although  it  unquestionably 
moves  about  in  it,  comp.  "  And  he  was  staying  in  the  plains  of  Mamre" 
(Gen.  xiv.  13),  and,  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Israel  stayed"  (Gen. 
xxxv.  22). 

The  term  was  next  applied  metaphorically  to  inanimate  objects,  i.e.,  to 
everything  which  has  settled  and  remains  fixed  on  one  object,  although  the 
object  on  which  the  thing  remains  is  not  a  place,  and  the  thing  itself  is  not  a 
living  being  ;  for  instance,  "  Let  a  cloud  dwell  upon  it  [the  day]  "  (Job  iii. 
5)  ;  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  cloud  is  not  a  living  being,  and  that  the  day 
is  not  a  corporeal  thing,  but  a  division  of  time. 

In  this  sense  the  term  is  employed  in  reference  to  God,  that  is  to  say,  to 
denote  the  continuance  of  His  Divine  Presence  (Shechinah)  or  of  His  Provi- 
dence in  some  place  where  the  Divine  Presence  manifested  itself  constantly, 
or  in  some  object  which  was  constantly  protected  by  Providence.  Comp. 
"  And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  abode  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  16)  ;  "  And  I  will  dwell 
among  the  children  of  Israel  "  (Exod.  xxix.  45)  ;  "  And  for  the  goodwill  of 
him  that  dwelt  in  the  bush  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  16).  Whenever  the  term  is 
applied  to  the  Almighty,  it  must  be  taken  consistently  with  the  context  in 
the  sense  either  as  referring  to  the  Presence  of  His  Shechinah  (i.e.,  of  His  light 
that  was  created  for  the  purpose)  in  a  certain  place,  or  of  the  continuance  of 
His  Providence  protecting  a  certain  object. 

CHAPTER  XXVI 

You,  no  doubt,  know  the  Talmudical  saying,  which  includes  in  itself  all  the 
various  kinds  of  interprctntion  connected  with  our  subject.     It  runs  thus  : 


ONKELOS'    VERSION   OF   GENHSIS   XLVL  4        35 

"  The  Torah  speaks  according  to  the  language  of  man,"  that  is  to  say,  ex- 
pressions, which  can  easily  be  comprehended  and  understood  by  all,  are 
applied  to  the  Creator.  Hence  the  description  of  God  by  attributes  imply- 
ing corporeality,  in  order  to  express  His  existence  ;  because  the  multitude  of 
people  do  not  easily  conceive  existence  unless  in  connection  with  a  body,  and 
that  which  is  not  a  body  nor  connected  with  a  body  has  for  them  no  exist- 
ence. Whatever  we  regard  as  a  state  of  perfection,  is  likewise  attributed 
to  God,  as  expressing  that  He  is  perfect  in  every  respect,  and  that  no  imper- 
fection or  deficiency  whatever  is  found  in  Him.  But  there  is  not  attributed 
to  God  anything  which  the  multitude  consider  a  defect  or  want ;  thus  He 
is  never  represented  as  eating,  drinking,  sleeping,  being  ill,  using  violence, 
and  the  like.  Whatever,  on  the  other  hand,  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  state 
of  perfection  is  attributed  to  Him,  although  it  is  only  a  state  of  perfection  in 
relation  to  ourselves ;  for  in  relation  to  God,  what  we  consider  to  be  a  state 
of  perfection,  is  in  truth  the  highest  degree  of  imperfection.  If,  however, 
men  were  to  think  that  those  human  perfections  were  absent  in  God,  they 
would  consider  Him  as  imperfect. 

You  are  aware  that  locomotion  is  one  of  the  distinguishing  characteristics 
of  living  beings,  and  is  indispensable  for  them  in  their  progress  towards  per- 
fection. As  they  require  food  and  drink  to  supply  animal  waste,  so  they 
require  locomotion,  in  order  to  approach  that  which  is  good  for  them  and  in 
harmony  with  their  nature,  and  to  escape  from  what  is  injurious  and  contrary 
to  their  nature.  It  makes,  in  fact,  no  difference  whether  we  ascribe  to  God 
eating  and  drinking  or  locomotion  ;  but  according  to  human  modes  of  ex- 
pression, that  is  to  say,  according  to  common  notions,  eating  and  drinking 
would  be  an  imperfection  in  God,  while  motion  would  not,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  necessity  of  locomotion  is  the  result  of  some  want.  Further- 
more, it  has  been  clearly  proved,  that  everything  which  moves  is  corporeal 
and  divisible  ;  it  will  be  shown  below  that  God  is  incorporeal  and  that  He 
can  have  no  locomotion  ;  nor  can  rest  be  ascribed  to  Him  ;  for  rest  can  only 
be  applied  to  that  which  also  moves.  AH  expressions,  however,  which  imply 
the  various  modes  of  movement  in  living  beings,  are  employed  with  regard 
to  God  in  the  manner  we  have  described  and  in  the  same  way  as  life  is  ascribed 
to  Him  ;  although  motion  is  an  accident  pertaining  to  living  beings,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that,  without  corporeality,  expressions  like  the  following 
could  not  be  imagined  :  "  to  descend,  to  ascend,  to  walk,  to  place,  to  stand, 
to  surround,  to  sit,  to  dwell,  to  depart,  to  enter,  to  pass,  etc. 

It  would  have  been  superfluous  thus  to  dilate  on  this  subject,  were  it  not 
for  the  mass  of  the  people,  who  are  accustomed  to  such  ideas.  It  has  been 
necessary  to  expatiate  on  the  subject,  as  we  have  attempted,  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  are  anxious  to  acquire  perfection,  to  remove  from  them  such 
notions  as  have  grown  up  with  them  from  the  days  of  youth. 

CHAPTER   XXVII 

Onkelos  the  Proselyte,  who  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew 
and  Chaldaic  languages,  made  it  his  task  to  oppose  the  belief  in  God's  cor- 
poreality. Accordingly,  any  expression  employed  in  the  Pentateuch  in 
reference  to  God,  and  in  any  way  implying  corporeality,  he  paraphrases  in 


36  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

consonance  with  the  context.  All  expressions  denoting  any  mode  of  motion, 
are  explained  by  Him  to  mean  the  appearance  or  manifestation  of  a  certain 
light  that  had  been  created  [for  the  occasion],  i.e.,  the  Shekhinah  (Divine 
Presence),  or  Providence.  Thus  he  paraphrases  "  the  Lord  will  come  down  " 
(Exod.  xix.  1 1),  "  The  Lord  will  manifest  Himself  " ;  "And  God  came  down  " 
(xvi.  20),  "  And  God  manifested  Himself"  ;  and  does  not  say  "  And  God 
came  down  "  ;  "I  will  go  down  now  and  see  "  (Gen.  xviii.  21),  he  para- 
phrases, "  I  will  manifest  myself  now  and  see."  This  is  his  rendering  [of  the 
verb  yarad,  "  he  went  down,"  when  used  in  reference  to  God]  throughout 
his  version,  with  the  exception  of  the  following  passage,  "  I  will  go  down 
(ered)  with  thee  into  Egypt "  (Gen.  xlvi.  4),  which  he  renders  literally.  A 
remarkable  proof  of  this  great  man's  talents,  the  excellence  of  his  version, 
and  the  correctness  of  his  interpretation  !  By  this  version  he  discloses  to  us 
an  important  principle  as  regards  prophecy. 

This  narrative  begins :  "  And  God  spake  unto  Israel  in  the  visions  of  the 
night,  and  said,  Jacob,  Jacob,  etc.  And  He  said,  I  am  God,  etc.,  I  will  go 
down  with  thee  into  Egypt  "  (Gen.  xlvi.  2,  3).  Seeing  that  the  whole  narra- 
tive is  introduced  as  a  vision  of  the  night,  Onkelos  did  not  hesitate  to  translate 
literally  the  words  addressed  to  Jacob  in  the  nocturnal  vision,  and  thus  gave 
a  faithful  account  of  the  occurrence.  For  the  passage  in  question  contains  a 
statement  of  what  Jacob  was  told,  not  what  actually  took  place,  as  is  the  case 
in  the  words,  "  And  the  Lord  came  down  upon  Mount  Sinai "  (Exod.  xix. 
20).  Here  we  have  an  account  of  what  actually  occurred  in  the  physical 
world  ;  the  verb  yarad  is  therefore  paraphrased  "  He  manifested  Himself," 
and  entirely  detached  from  the  idea  of  motion.  Accounts  of  what  happened 
in  the  imagination  of  man,  I  mean  of  what  he  was  told,  are  not  altered.  A 
most  remarkable  distinction  ! 

Hence  you  may  infer  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between  a  communi- 
cation, designated  as  having  been  made  in  a  dream,  or  a  vision  of  the  night, 
and  a  vision  or  a  manifestation  simply  introduced  with  phrases  like  "  And  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me,  saying  " ;  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  me, 
saying." 

According  to  my  opinion,  it  is  also  possible  that  Onkelos  understood  Elohitn 
in  the  above  passage  to  signify  "  angel,"  and  that  for  this  reason  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  translate  literally,  "  I  will  go  down  with  thee  to  Egypt."  Do  not 
think  it  strange  that  Onkelos  should  have  believed  the  Elohim,  who  said  to 
Jacob,  "  I  am  God,  the  God  of  thy  father  "  (ib.  3),  to  be  an  angel,  for  this 
sentence  can,  in  the  same  form,  also  have  been  spoken  by  an  angel.  Thus 
Jacob  says,  "  And  the  angel  of  God  spake  unto  me  in  a  dream,  saying,  Jacob. 
And  I  said,  Here  am  I,  "  etc.  (Gen.  xxxi.  ll)  ;  and  concludes  the  report  of 
the  angel's  words  to  him  in  the  following  way,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel, 
where  thou  anointedst  the  pillar,  and  where  thou  vowedst  a  vow  unto  me  " 
{ib.  13),  although  there  is  no  doubt  that  Jacob  vowed  to  God,  not  to  the 
angel.  It  is  the  usual  practice  of  prophets  to  relate  words  addressed  to  them 
by  an  angel  in  the  name  of  God,  as  though  God  Himself  had  spoken  to  them. 
Such  passages  arc  all  to  be  explained  by  supplying  the  nomen  regens,  and  by 
considering  them  as  identical  with  "  I  am  the  messenger  of  the  God  of  thy 
father,"  "  I  am  the  messenger  of  God  who  appeared  to  thee  in  Bethel,"  and 
the  like.     Prophecy  with  its  various  degrees,  and  the  nature  of  angels,  will  be 


ON    HOMONYMS   IN    THE    BIBLE  37 

fully  discussed  in  the  sequel,  in  accordance  with  the  object  of  this  treatise 
(II.  chap.  xiv.). 

CHAPTER  XXVIII 

The  term  regel  is  homonymous,  signifying,  in  the  first  place,  the  foot  of  a 
living  being  ;  comp.  "  Foot  for  foot  "  (Exod.  xxi.  24).  Next  it  denotes  an 
object  which  follows  another  ;  comp.  "  And  all  the  people  that  follow  thee  " 
(lit.  that  are  at  thy  feet)  {ib.  xi.  18).  Another  signification  of  the  word  is 
"  cause  "  ;  comp.  "  And  the  Lord  hath  blessed  thee,  I  being  the  cause  " 
{leragli)  (Gen.  xxx.  30),  i.e.,  for  my  sake  ;  for  that  which  exists  for  the  sake 
of  another  thing  has  the  latter  for  its  final  cause.  Examples  of  the  term  used 
in  this  sense  are  numerous.  It  has  that  meaning  in  Genesis  xxxiii.  14,  "  Be- 
cause {leregel)  of  the  cattle  that  goeth  before  me,  and  because  (leregel)  of 
the  children." 

Consequently,  the  Hebrew  text,  of  which  the  literal  rendering  is :  "  And 
his  feet  shall  stand  in  that  day  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives  "  (Zech.  xiv.  4) 
can  be  explained  in  the  following  way  :  "  And  the  things  caused  by  him 
(raglav)  on  that  day  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives,  that  is  to  say,  the  wonders 
which  will  then  be  seen,  and  of  which  God  will  be  the  Cause  or  the  Maker, 
will  remain  permanently."  To  this  explanation  does  Jonathan  son  of  Uziel 
incline  in  paraphrasing  the  passage,  "  And  he  will  appear  in  his  might  on 
that  day  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives.  He  generally  expresses  terms  denoting 
those  parts  of  the  body  by  which  contact  and  motion  are  eflfected,  by  "  his 
might"  [when  referring  to  God],  because  all  such  expressions  denote  acts 
done  by  His  Will. 

In  the  passage  (Exod.  xxiv.  lo,  lit.,  "  And  there  was  under  his  feet,  like  the 
action  of  the  whiteness  of  a  sapphire  stone  "),  Onkelos,  as  you  know,  in  his 
version,  considers  the  word  (raglav)  "  his  feet  "  as  a  figurative  expression 
and  a  substitute  for  "  throne  "  ;  the  words  "  under  his  feet  "  he  therefore 
paraphrases,  "  And  under  the  throne  of  his  glory."  Consider  this  well,  and 
you  will  observe  with  wonder  how  Onkelos  keeps  free  from  the  idea  of  the  cor- 
poreality of  God,  and  from  everything  that  leads  thereto,  even  in  the  remotest 
degree.  For  he  does  not  say,  "  and  under  His  throne  "  ;  the  direct  relation 
of  the  throne  to  God,  implied  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  phrase  "  His  throne," 
would  necessarily  suggest  the  idea  that  God  is  supported  by  a  material  object, 
and  thus  lead  directly  to  the  corporeality  of  God  ;  he  therefore  refers  the 
throne  to  His  glory,  i.e.,  to  the  Shekhinah,  which  is  a  light  created  for  the 
purpose. 

Similarly  he  paraphrases  the  words,  "  For  my  hand  I  lift  up  to  the  throne 
of  God  "  (Exod.  xvii.  16),  "  An  oath  has  been  uttered  by  God,  whose  She- 
khinah is  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory."  This  principle  found  also  expression 
in  the  popular  phrase,  "  the  Throne  of  the  Glory." 

We  have  already  gone  too  far  away  from  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  and 
touched  upon  things  which  will  be  discussed  in  other  chapters ;  we  will  now 
return  to  our  present  theme.  You  are  acquainted  with  the  version  of 
Onkelos  [of  the  passage  quoted].  He  contents  himself  with  excluding  from 
his  version  all  expressions  of  corporeality  in  reference  to  God,  and  does  not 
jhow  U3  what  they  (the  nobles  of  the  children  of  Israel  Exod.  xxiv.  10)  per- 


38  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ceived,  or  what  is  meant  by  that  figure.  In  all  similar  instances  Onkelos  also 
abstains  from  entering  into  such  questions,  and  only  endeavours  to  exclude 
every  expression  implying  corporeality ;  for  the  incorporeality  of  God  is  a 
demonstrative  truth  and  an  indispensable  element  in  our  faith  ;  he  could 
decidedly  state  all  that  was  necessary  in  that  respect.  The  interpretation  of 
a  simile  is  a  doubtful  thing  ;  it  may  possibly  have  that  meaning,  but  it  may 
also  refer  to  something  else.  It  contains  besides  very  profound  matter,  the 
understanding  of  which  is  not  a  fundamental  element  in  our  faith,  and  the 
comprehension  of  which  is  not  easy  for  the  common  people.  Onkelos,  there- 
fore, did  not  enter  at  all  into  this  subject. 

We,  however,  remaining  faithful  to  our  task  in  this  treatise,  find  ourselves 
compelled  to  give  our  explanation.  According  to  our  opinion  "  under  his 
feet  "  (raglav)  denotes  "  under  that  of  which  He  is  the  cause,"  "  that  which 
exists  through  Him,"  as  we  have  already  stated.  They  (the  nobles  of  the 
children  of  Israel)  therefore  comprehended  the  real  nature  of  the  materia 
■prima,  which  emanated  from  Him,  and  of  whose  existence  He  is  the  only 
cause.  Consider  well  the  phrase,  "  like  the  action  of  the  whiteness  of  the 
sapphire  stone."  If  the  colour  were  the  point  of  comparison,  the  words, 
"  as  the  whiteness  of  the  sapphire  stone  "  would  have  sufficed ;  but  the 
addition  of  "  like  the  action  "  was  necessary,  because  matter,  as  such,  is,  as 
you  are  well  aware,  always  receptive  and  passive,  active  only  by  some  acci- 
dent. On  the  other  hand,  form,  as  such,  is  always  active,  and  only  passive 
by  some  accident,  as  is  explained  in  works  on  Physics.  This  explains  the 
addition  of  "  like  the  action  "  in  reference  to  the  materia  prima.  The  ex- 
pression "  the  whiteness  of  the  sapphire  "  refers  to  the  transparency,  not  to 
the  white  colour  ;  for  "  the  whiteness  "  of  the  sapphire  is  not  a  white  colour, 
but  the  property  of  being  transparent.  Things,  however,  which  are  trans- 
parent, have  no  colour  of  their  own,  as  is  proved  in  works  on  Physics ;  for  if 
they  had  a  colour  they  would  not  permit  all  the  colours  to  pass  through  them 
nor  would  they  receive  colours ;  it  is  only  when  the  transparent  object  is 
totally  colourless,  that  it  is  able  to  receive  successively  all  the  colours.  In 
this  respect  it  (the  whiteness  of  the  sapphire)  is  like  the  materia  prima,  which 
as  such  is  entirely  formless,  and  thus  receives  all  the  forms  one  after  the  other. 
What  they  (the  nobles  of  the  children  of  Israel)  perceived  was  therefore  the 
materia  prima,  whose  relation  to  God  is  distinctly  mentioned,  because  it  is 
the  source  of  those  of  his  creatures  which  are  subject  to  genesis  and  destruc- 
tion, and  has  been  created  by  him.  This  subject  also  will  be  treated  later 
on  more  fully. 

Observe  that  you  must  have  recourse  to  an  explanation  of  this  kind,  even 
when  adopting  the  rendering  of  Onkelos,  "  And  under  the  throne  of  His 
glory  " ;  for  in  fact  the  materia  prima  is  also  under  the  heavens,  which  are  called 
*'  throne  of  God,"  as  we  have  remarked  above.  I  should  not  have  thought 
of  this  unusual  interpretation,  or  hit  on  this  argument  were  it  not  for  an  utter- 
ance of  R.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanus,  which  will  be  discussed  in  one  of  the  parts 
of  this  treatise  (II.  chap.  xxvi.).  The  primary  object  of  every  intelligent 
person  must  be  to  deny  the  corporeality  of  God,  and  to  believe  that  all  those 
perceptions  (described  in  the  above  passage)  were  of  a  spiritual  not  of  a 
material  character.     Note  this  and  consider  it  well. 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  39 

CHAPTER   XXIX 

The  term  'ezeb  is  homonymous,  denoting,  in  the  first  place,  pain  and  tremb- 
ling; comp.  "In  sorrow (^^-'^Zi?^)  thou  shalt  bring  forth  children  "  (Gen.  iii. 
16).  Next  it  denotes  anger ;  comp.  "  And  his  father  had  not  made  him 
angry  {'azaho)  at  any  time  "  (l  Kings  i.  6)  ;  "  for  he  was  angry  {ne^ezali)  for 
the  sake  of  David  "  (l  Sam.  xx.  34).  The  term  signifies  also  provocation  ; 
comp.  "  They  rebelled,  and  vexed  {'izzebu)  his  holy  spirit  "  (Isa.  Ixiii.  10)  ; 
"  and  provoked  (ya'azihahu)  him  in  the  desert  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  40)  ;  "  If  there 
be  any  way  of  provocation  {^ozeb)  in  me  "  {ib.  cxxxix.  24)  ;  "  Every  day  they 
rebel  (ye'azzcbu)  against  my  words  "  {ib.  Ivi.  6). 

In  Genesis  vi.  6  the  word  has  either  the  second  or  the  third  signification. 
In  the  first  case,  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  va-yitazzeb  el  libbo  is  "  God  was 
angry  with  them  on  account  of  the  wickedness  of  their  deeds  "  ;  as  to  the 
words  "  to  his  heart  "  used  here,  and  also  in  the  history  of  Noah  {ib.  viii.  21) 
I  will  here  explain  what  they  mean.  With  regard  to  man,  we  use  the  ex- 
pression "  he  said  to  himself,"  or  "  he  said  in  his  heart,"  in  reference  to  a 
subject  which  he  did  not  utter  or  communicate  to  any  other  person.  Simi- 
larly the  phrase  "  And  God  said  in  his  heart,"  is  used  in  reference  to  an  act 
which  God  decreed  without  mentioning  it  to  any  prophet  at  the  time  the 
event  took  place  according  to  the  will  of  God.  And  a  figure  of  this 
kind  is  admissible,  since  ''  the  Torah  speaketh  in  accordance  with  the 
language  of  man  "  {supra  c.  xxvi.).  This  is  plain  and  clear.  In  the  Pen- 
tateuch no  distinct  mention  is  made  of  a  message  sent  to  the  wicked  gener- 
ation of  the  flood,  cautioning  or  threatening  them  with  death  ;  therefore, 
it  is  said  concerning  them,  that  God  was  angry  with  them  in  His  heart ; 
likewise  when  He  decreed  that  no  flood  should  happen  again.  He  did  not  tell 
a  prophet  to  communicate  it  to  others,  and  for  that  reason  the  words  "  in 
his  heart  "  are  added. 

Taking  the  verb  in  the  third  signification,  we  explain  the  passage  thus  : 
"  And  man  rebelled  against  God's  will  concerning  him  "  ;  for  leb  (heart) 
also  signifies  "  will,"  as  we  shall  explain  when  treating  of  the  homonymity 
of  leb  (heart). 

CHAPTER   XXX 

In  its  primary  meaning  akal  (to  eat)  is  used  in  the  sense  of  taking  food  by 
animals ;  this  needs  no  illustration.  It  was  afterwards  observed  that  eating 
includes  two  processes — (i)  the  loss  of  the  food,  i.e.,  the  destruction  of  its 
form,  which  first  takes  place ;  (2)  the  growth  of  animals,  the  preservation 
of  their  strength  and  their  existence,  and  the  support  of  all  the  forces  of  their 
body,  caused  by  the  food  they  take. 

The  consideration  of  the  first  process  led  to  the  figurative  use  of  the  verb, 
in  the  sense  of  "  consuming,"  "  destroying  "  ;  hence  it  includes  all  modes 
of  depriving  a  thing  of  its  form  ;  comp.  "  And  the  land  of  your  enemies  shall 
destroy  (lit.  eat)  you  "  (Lev.  xxvi.  38)  ;  "  A  land  that  destroyeth  (lit.  eateth) 
the  inhabitants  thereof  "  (Num.  xiii.  32)  ;  "  Ye  shall  be  destroyed  (lit.  eaten) 
with  the  sword  "  (Isa.  i.  6)  ;  "  Shall  the  sword  destroy  (lit.  eat)  "  (2  Sam. 
ii.  26)  ;  "  And  the  fire  of  the  Lord  burnt  among  them,  and  destroyed  (lit. 
ate)  them  that  were  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  camp  "  (Num.  xi.  i)  ; 


40  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

"  (God)  is  a  destroying  (lit.  eating)  fire  "  (Deut.  iv.  24),  that  is,  He  destroys 
those  who  rebel  against  Him,  as  the  fire  destroys  everything  that  comes 
within  its  reach.     Instances  of  this  kind  are  very  frequent. 

With  reference  to  the  second  effect  of  the  act  of  eating,  the  verb  "  to  eat  " 
is  figuratively  used  in  the  sense  of  "  acquiring  wisdom,"  "  learning  "  ;  in 
short,  for  all  intellectual  perceptions.  These  preserve  the  human  form 
(intellect)  constantly  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  in  the  same  way  as  food 
preserves  the  body  in  its  best  condition.  Comp.  "  Come  ye,  buy  and  eat " 
(Isa.  Iv.  l)  ;  "  Hearken  diligently  unto  me,  and  eat  ye  that  which  is  good  " 
(ib.  2)  ;  "  It  is  not  good  to  eat  much  honey  "  (Prov.  xxv.  27)  ;  "  My  son, 
eat  thou  honey,  because  it  is  good,  and  the  honeycomb,  which  is  sweet  to  thy 
taste  ;  so  shall  the  knowledge  of  wisdom  be  unto  thy  soul  "  (ib.  xxiv.  13,  14). 

This  figurative  use  of  the  verb  "  to  eat  "  in  the  sense  of  "  acquiring  wis- 
dom "  is  frequently  met  with  in  the  Talmud,  e.g.,  "  Come,  eat  fat  meat  at 
Raba's  (Baba  Bathra  22^)  ;  comp.  "All  expressions  of  '  eating  '  and  '  drinking ' 
found  in  this  book  (of  Proverbs)  refer  to  wisdom,"  or,  according  to  another 
reading,  "  to  the  Law  "  (Koh.  rabba  on  Eccl.  iii.  13).  Wisdom  has  also  been 
frequently  called  "  water,"  e.g.,  "  Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to 
the  waters  "  (Isa.  Iv.  i). 

The  figurative  meaning  of  these  expressions  has  been  so  general  and 
common,  that  it  was  almost  considered  as  its  primitive  signification,  and  led 
to  the  employment  "  of  hunger  "  and  "  thirst  "  in  the  sense  of  "  absence  of 
wisdom  and  intelligence  "  ;  comp.  "  I  will  send  a  famine  in  the  land,  not  a 
famine  of  bread,  nor  a  thirst  for  water,  but  of  hearing  the  words  of  the  Lord  "  ; 
"  My  soul  thirsteth  for  God,  for  the  living  God  "  (Ps.  xlii.  3).  Instances  of 
this  kind  occur  frequently.  The  words,  "-With  joy  shall  ye  draw  water  out 
of  the  wells  of  salvation  "  (Isa.  xii.  3),  are  paraphrased  by  Jonathan  son  of 
Uzziel  thus :  "  You  will  joyfully  receive  new  instruction  from  the  chosen  of 
the  righteous."  Consider  how  he  explains  "  water  "  to  indicate  "  the  wis- 
dom which  wiU  then  spread,"  and  "  the  wells  "  (ma'ayene)  as  being  identical 
with  "  the  eyes  of  the  congregation  "  (Num.  xv.  24),  in  the  sense  of  "  the 
chiefs,"  or  "  the  wise."  By  the  phrase,  "  from  the  chosen  of  the  righteous," 
he  expresses  his  belief  that  righteousness  is  true  salvation.  You  now  see  how 
he  gives  to  every  word  in  this  verse  some  signification  referring  to  wisdom 
and  study.     This  should  be  well  considered. 

CHAPTER   XXXI 

Know  that  for  the  human  mind  there  are  certain  objects  of  perception  which 
are  within  thcscopeof  its  nature  and  capacity  ;  on  the  other  hand,  there  are, 
amongst  things  which  actually  exist,  certain  objects  which  the  mind  can  in 
no  way  and  by  no  means  grasp  :  the  gates  of  perception  are  closed  against  it. 
Further,  there  are  things  of  which  the  mind  understands  one  part,  but 
remains  ignorant  of  the  other ;  and  when  man  is  able  to  comprehend  certain 
things,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  must  be  able  to  comprehend  everything. 
This  also  applies  to  the  senses  :  they  are  able  to  perceive  things,  but  not  at 
every  distance  ;  and  all  other  powers  of  the  body  are  limited  in  a  similar  way. 
A  man  can,  e.g.,  carry  two  kikkar,  but  he  cannot  carry  ten  kikkar.  How 
individuals  of  the  same  species  surpass  each  other  in  these  sensations  and  in 


ON    THE   STUDY    OF    METAPHYSICS  41 

other  bodily  faculties  is  universally  known,  but  there  is  a  limit  to  them,  and 
their  power  cannot  extend  to  every  distance  or  to  every  degree. 

All  this  is  applicable  to  the  intellectual  faculties  of  man.     There  is  a  con- 
siderable difference  between  one  person  and  another  as  regards  these  facul- 
ties, as  is  well  known  to  philosophers.     While  one  man  can  discover  a  certain 
thing  by  himself,  another  is  never  able  to  understand  it,  even  if  taught  by 
means  of  all  possible  expressions  and  metaphors,  and  during  a  long  period  ; 
his  mind  can  in  no  way  grasp  it,  his  capacity  is  insufficient  for  it.     This  dis- 
tinction is  not  unlimited.     A  boundary  is  undoubtedly  set  to  the  human 
mind  which  it  cannot  pass.     There  are  things  (beyond  that  boundary)  which 
are  acknowledged  to  be  inaccessible  to  human  understanding,  and  man  does 
not  show  any  desire  to  comprehend  them,  being  aware  that  such  knowledge 
is  impossible,  and  that  there  are  no  means  of  overcoming  the  difficulty  ; 
e.g.,  we  do  not  know  the  number  of  stars  in  heaven,  whether  the  number  is 
even  or  odd  ;   we  do  not  know  the  number  of  animals,  minerals,  or  plants, 
and  the  like.     There  are  other  things,  however,  which  man  very  much  desires 
to  know,  and  strenuous  efforts  to  examine  and  to  investigate  them  have  been 
made  by  thinkers  of  all  classes,  and  at  all  times.     They  differ  and  disagree, 
and  constantly  raise  new  doubts  with  regard  to  them,  because  their  minds  are 
bent  on  comprehending  such  things,  that  is  to  say,  they  are  moved  by  desire  ; 
and  every  one  of  them  believes  that  he  has  discovered  the  way  leading  to  a 
true  knowledge  of  the  thing,  although  human  reason  is  entirely  unable  to 
demonstrate  the  fact  by  convincing  evidence. — For  a  proposition  which  can 
be  proved  by  evidence  is  not  subject  to  dispute,  denial,  or  rejection  ;    none 
but  the  ignorant  would  contradict  it,  and  such  contradiction  is  called  "  denial 
of  a  demonstrated  proof."     Thus  you  find  men  who  deny  the  spherical  form 
of  the  earth,  or  the  circular  form  of  the  line  in  which  the  stars  move,  and  the 
like  ;   such  men  are  not  considered  in  this  treatise.     This  confusion  prevails 
mostly  in  metaphysical  subjects,  less  in  problems  relating  to  physics,  and  is 
entirely  absent  from  the  exact  sciences.     Alexander  Aphrodisius  said  that 
there  are  three  causes  which  prevent  men  from  discovering  the  exact  truth  : 
first,  arrogance  and  vainglory  ;  secondly,  the  subtlety,  depth,  and  difficult)' 
of  any  subject  which  is  being  examined  ;    thirdly,  ignorance  and  want  of 
capacity  to  comprehend  what  might  be  comprehended.     These  causes  are 
enumerated  by  Alexander.     At  the  present  time  there  is  a  fourth  cause  not 
mentioned  by  him,  because  it  did  not  then  prevail,  namely,  habit  and  train- 
ing.    We  naturally  like  what  we  have  been  accustomed  to,  and  are  attracted 
towards  it.     This  may  be  observed  amongst  villagers ;    though  they  rarely 
enjoy  the  benefit  of  a  douche  or  bath,  and  have  few  enjoyments,  and  pass  a 
life  of  privation,  they  dislike  town  life  and  do  not  desire  its  pleasures,  pre- 
ferring the  inferior  things  to  which  they  are  accustomed,  to  the  better  things 
to  which  they  are  strangers ;  it  would  give  them  no  satisfaction  to  live  in 
palaces,  to  be  clothed  in  silk,  and  to  indulge  in  baths,  ointments,  and  perfumes. 
The  same  is  the  case  with  those  opinions  of  man  to  which  he  has  been 
accustomed  from  his  youth  ;    he  likes  them,  defends  them,  and  shuns  the 
opposite  views.     This  is  likewise  one  of  the  causes  which  prevent  men  from 
finding  truth,  and  which  make  them  cling  to  their  habitual  opinions.     Such 
is,  e.g.,  the  case  with  the  vulgar  notions  with  respect  to  the  corporeality  of 
God,  and  many  other  metaphysical  questions,  as  we  shall  explain.     It  is  the 


42  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

result  of  long  familiarity  with  passages  of  the  Bible,  which  they  are  accus- 
tomed to  respect  and  to  receive  as  true,  and  the  literal  sense  of  which  implies 
the  corporeality  of  God  and  other  false  notions ;  in  truth,  however,  these 
words  were  employed  as  figures  and  metaphors  for  reasons  to  be  mentioned 
below.  Do  not  imagine  that  what  we  have  said  of  the  insufficiency  of  our 
understanding  and  of  its  limited  extent  is  an  assertion  founded  only  on  the 
Bible  ;  for  philosophers  likewise  assert  the  same,  and  perfectly  understand 
it,  without  having  regard  to  any  religion  or  opinion.  It  is  a  fact  which  is 
only  doubted  by  those  who  ignore  things  fully  proved.  This  chapter  is  in- 
tended as  an  introduction  to  the  next. 

CHAPTER  XXXII 

You  must  consider,  when  reading  this  treatise,  that  mental  perception, 
because  connected  with  matter,  is  subject  to  conditions  similar  to  those  to 
which  physical  perception  is  subject.  That  is  to  say,  if  your  eye  looks  around, 
you  can  perceive  all  that  is  within  the  range  of  your  vision  ;  if,  however,  you 
overstrain  your  eye,  exerting  it  too  much  by  attempting  to  see  an  object 
which  is  too  distant  for  your  eye,  or  to  examine  writings  or  engravings  too 
small  for  your  sight,  and  forcing  it  to  obtain  a  correct  perception  of  them, 
you  will  not  only  weaken  your  sight  with  regard  to  that  special  object,  but 
also  for  those  things  which  you  otherwise  are  able  to  perceive  :  your  eye  will 
have  become  too  weak  to  perceive  what  you  were  able  to  see  before  you  ex- 
erted yourself  and  exceeded  the  limits  of  your  vision. 

The  same  is  the  case  with  the  speculative  faculties  of  one  who  devotes 
himself  to  the  study  of  any  science.  If  a  person  studies  too  much  and  ex- 
hausts his  reflective  powers,  he  will  be  confused,  and  will  not  be  able  to 
apprehend  even  that  which  had  been  within  the  power  of  his  apprehension. 
For  the  powers  of  the  body  are  all  alike  in  this  respect. 

The  mental  perceptions  are  not  exempt  from  a  similar  condition.  If  you 
admit  the  doubt,  and  do  not  persuade  yourself  to  believe  that  there  is  a  proof 
for  things  which  cannot  be  demonstrated,  or  to  try  at  once  to  reject  and 
positively  to  deny  an  assertion  the  opposite  of  which  has  never  been  proved,  or 
attempt  to  perceive  things  which  are  beyond  your  perception,  then  you  have 
attained  the  highest  degree  of  human  perfection,  then  you  are  like  R.  Akibha, 
who  "  in  peace  entered  [the  study  of  these  theological  problems],  and  came 
out  in  peace."  If,  on  the  other  hand,  you  attempt  to  exceed  the  limit  of 
your  intellectual  power,  or  at  once  to  reject  things  as  impossible  which  have 
never  been  proved  to  be  impossible,  or  which  are  in  fact  possible,  though 
their  possibility  be  very  remote,  then  you  will  be  like  Elisha  Aher  ;  you  will 
not  only  fail  to  become  perfect,  but  you  will  become  exceedingly  imperfect. 
Ideas  founded  on  mere  imagination  will  prevail  over  you,  you  will  incline 
toward  defects,  and  toward  base  and  degraded  habits,  on  account  of  the 
confusion  which  troubles  the  mind,  and  of  the  dimness  of  its  light,  just  as 
weakness  of  sight  causes  invalids  to  sec  many  kinds  of  unreal  images,  especially 
when  they  have  looked  for  a  long  time  at  dazzling  or  at  very  minute  objects. 

Respecting  this  it  has  been  said,  "  Hast  thou  found  honey  ?  eat  so  much  as 
is  sufficient  for  thee,  lest  thou  be  filled  therewith,  and  vomit  it "  (Prov.  xxv. 
i6).     Our  Sages  also  applied  this  verse  to  Elisha  Aher. 


ON    THE    STUDY    OF    METAPHYSICS  43 

How  excellent  is  this  simile  !  In  comparing  knowledge  to  food  (as  we 
observed  in  chap,  xxx.),  the  author  of  Proverbs  mentions  the  sweetest  food, 
namely,  honey,  which  has  the  further  property  of  irritating  the  stomach,  and 
of  causing  sickness.  He  thus  fully  describes  the  nature  of  knowledge. 
Though  great,  excellent,  noble  and  perfect,  it  is  injurious  if  not  kept  within 
bounds  or  not  guarded  properly  ;  it  is  like  honey  which  gives  nourishment 
and  is  pleasant,  when  eaten  in  moderation,  but  is  totally  thrown  away  when 
eaten  immoderately.  Therefore,  it  is  not  said  "  lest  thou  be  filled  and  loathe 
it,"  but  "  lest  thou  vomit  it."  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  words, 
"'it  is  not  good  to  eat  much  honey"  (Prov.  xxv.  27);  and  in  the  words, 
"  Neither  make  thyself  over-wise  ;  why  shouldst  thou  destroy  thyself  ?  " 
(Eccles.  vii.  l6)  ;  comp.  "  Keep  thy  foot  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of 
God  "  (ibid.  V.  i).  The  same  subject  is  alluded  to  in  the  words  of  David, 
"  Neither  do  I  exercise  myself  in  great  matters,  or  in  things  too  high  for  me  " 
(Ps.  cxxxi.  2),  and  in  the  sayings  of  our  Sages :  "  Do  not  inquire  into  things 
which  are  too  difficult  for  thee,  do  not  search  what  is  hidden  from  thee ; 
study  what  you  are  allowed  to  study,  and  do  not  occupy  thyself  with  mys- 
teries." They  meant  to  say.  Let  thy  mind  only  attempt  things  which  are 
within  human  perception ;  for  the  study  of  things  which  lie  beyond  man's 
comprehension  is  extremely  injurious,  as  has  been  already  stated.  This 
lesson  is  also  contained  in  the  Talmudical  passage,  which  begins,  "  He  who 
considers  four  things,"  etc.,  and  concludes,  "  He  who  does  not  regard  the 
honour  of  his  Creator  "  ;  here  also  is  given  the  advice  which  we  have  already 
mentioned,  viz.,  that  man  should  not  rashly  engage  in  speculation  with  false 
conceptions,  and  when  he  is  in  doubt  about  anything,  or  unable  to  find  a 
proof  for  the  object  of  his  inquiry,  he  must  not  at  once  abandon,  reject 
and  deny  it ;  he  must  modestly  keep  back,  and  from  regard  to  the  honour 
of  his  Creator,  hesitate  [from  uttering  an  opinion]  and  pause.  This  has 
already  been  explained. 

It  was  not  the  object  of  the  Prophets  and  our  Sages  in  these  utterances  to 
close  the  gate  of  investigation  entirely,  and  to  prevent  the  mind  from  com- 
prehending what  is  within  its  reach,  as  is  imagined  by  simple  and  idle  people, 
whom  it  suits  better  to  put  forth  their  ignorance  and  incapacity  as  wisdom 
and  perfection,  and  to  regard  the  distinction  and  wisdom  of  others  as  irre- 
ligion  and  imperfection,  thus  taking  darkness  for  light  and  light  for  darkness. 
The  whole  object  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Sages  was  to  declare  that  a  limit 
is  set  to  human  reason  where  it  must  halt.  Do  not  criticise  the  words  used 
in  this  chapter  and  in  others  in  reference  to  the  mind,  for  we  only  intended 
to  give  some  idea  of  the  subject  in  view,  not  to  describe  the  essence  of  the 
intellect ;  for  other  chapters  have  been  dedicated  to  this  subject. 

CHAPTER  XXXIII 

You  must  know  that  it  is  very  injurious  to  begin  vnth  this  branch  of  philo- 
sophy, viz..  Metaphysics  ;  or  to  explain  [at  first]  the  sense  of  the  similes 
occurring  in  prophecies,  and  interpret  the  metaphors  which  are  em- 
ployed in  historical  accounts  and  which  abound  in  the  writings  of  the 
Prophets.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  necessary  to  initiate  the  young  and  to  in- 
struct the  less  intelligent   according  to  their    comprehension  ;    those   who 


44  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

appear  to  be  talented  and  to  have  capacity  for  the  higher  method  of  studjr, 
i.e.,  that  based  on  proof  and  on  true  logical  argument,  should  be  gradually  ad- 
vanced towards  perfection,  either  by  tuition  or  by  self-instruction.  He,  how- 
ever, who  begins  with  Metaphysics,  will  not  only  become  confused  in  matters 
of  religion,  but  will  fall  into  complete  infidelity.  I  compare  such  a  person  to 
an  infant  fed  with  wheaten  bread,  meat  and  wine  ;  it  will  undoubtedly  die, 
not  because  such  food  is  naturally  unfit  for  the  human  body,  but  because  of 
the  weakness  of  the  child,  who  is  unable  to  digest  the  food,  and  cannot  derive 
benefit  from  it.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  true  principles  of  science. 
They  were  presented  in  enigmas,  clad  in  riddles,  and  taught  by  all  wise  men 
in  the  most  mysterious  way  that  could  be  devised,  not  because  they  contain 
some  secret  evil,  or  are  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law 
(as  fools  think  who  are  only  philosophers  in  their  own  eyes),  but  because  of 
the  incapacity  of  man  to  comprehend  them  at  the  beginning  of  his  studies  : 
only  slight  allusions  have  been  made  to  them  to  serve  for  the  guidance  of 
those  who  are  capable  of  understanding  them.  These  sciences  were,  there- 
fore, called  Mysteries  (sodoth),  and  Secrets  of  the  Law  (sitre  torah),  as  we 
shall  explain. 

This  also  is  the  reason  why  "  the  Torah  speaks  the  language  of  man,"  as 
we  have  explained,  for  it  is  the  object  of  the  Torah  to  serve  as  a  guide  for  the 
instruction  of  the  young,  of  women,  and  of  the  common  people  ;  and  as  all 
of  them  are  incapable  to  comprehend  the  true  sense  of  the  words,  tradition 
was  considered  sufficient  to  convey  all  truths  which  were  to  be  established  ; 
and  as  regards  ideals,  only  such  remarks  were  made  as  would  lead  towards  a 
knowledge  of  their  existence,  though  not  to  a  comprehension  of  their  true 
essence.  When  a  man  attains  to  perfection,  and  arrives  at  a  knowledge  of 
the  "  Secrets  of  the  Law,"  either  through  the  assistance  of  a  teacher  or  by 
self-instruction,  being  led  by  the  understanding  of  one  part  to  the  study  of 
the  other,  he  will  belong  to  those  who  faithfully  believe  in  the  true  principles, 
either  because  of  conclusive  proof,  where  proof  is  possible,  or  by  forcible 
arguments,  where  argument  is  admissible  ;  he  will  have  a  true  notion  of 
those  things  which  he  previously  received  in  similes  and  metaphors,  and  he 
will  fully  understand  their  sense.  We  have  frequently  mentioned  in  this 
treatise  the  principle  of  our  Sages  "  not  to  discuss  the  Ma^aseh  Mercabah 
even  in  the  presence  of  one  pupil,  except  he  be  wise  and  intelligent ;  and 
then  only  the  headings  of  the  chapters  are  to  be  given  to  him."  We  must, 
therefore,  begin  with  teaching  these  subjects  according  to  the  capacity  of 
the  pupil,  and  on  two  conditions,  first,  that  he  be  wise,  i.e.,  that  he  should 
have  successfully  gone  through  the  preliminary  studies,  and  secondly  that 
he  be  intelligent,  talented,  clear-headed,  and  of  quick  perception,  that  is, 
"  have  a  mind  of  his  own  "  {mebin  midda'ato)^  as  our  Sages  termed  it. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  explain  the  reasons  why  we  should  not  instruct  the 
multitude  in  pure  metaphysics,  or  begin  with  describing  to  them  the  true 
essence  of  things,  or  with  showing  them  that  a  thing  must  be  as  it  is,  and 
cannot  be  otherwise.  This  wSll  form  the  subject  of  the  next  chapter  ;  and 
I  proceed  to  say — 

CHAPTER  XXXIV 
There  are  five  reasons  why  instruction  should  not  begin  with  Metaphysics, 


ON    THE    STUDY    OF    METAPHYSICS  45 

but  should  at  first  be  restricted  to  pointing  out  what  is  fitted  for  notice  and 
what  may  be  made  manifest  to  the  multitude. 

First  Reason. — The  subject  itself  is  difficult,  subtle  and  profound,  "  Far 
off  and  exceeding  deep,  who  can  find  it  out  ?  "  (Eccles.  vii.  24).  The  following 
words  of  Job  may  be  applied  to  it :  "  Whence  then  comcth  wisdom  ?  and 
where  is  the  place  of  understanding  ?  "  (Job  xxviii.  20).  Instruction  should 
not  begin  with  abstruse  and  difficult  subjects.  In  one  of  the  similes  contained 
in  the  Bible,  wisdom  is  compared  to  water,  and  amongst  other  interpretations 
given  by  our  Sages  of  this  simile,  occurs  the  following :  He  who  can  swim 
may  bring  up  pearls  from  the  depth  of  the  sea,  he  who  is  unable  to  swim  will 
be  drowned,  therefore  only  such  persons  as  have  had  proper  instruction  should 
expose  themselves  to  the  risk. 

Second  Reason. — The  intelligence  of  man  is  at  first  insufficient ;  for  he  is  not 
endowed  with  perfection  at  the  beginning,  but  at  first  possesses  perfection 
only  in  potentia,  not  in  fact.  Thus  it  is  said,  "  And  man  is  born  a  wild  ass  " 
(Job  xi.  12).  If  a  man  possesses  a  certain  faculty  in  potentia,  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  must  become  in  him  a  reality.  He  may  possibly  remain  defi- 
cient either  on  account  of  some  obstacle,  or  from  want  of  training  in  prac- 
tices which  would  turn  the  possibility  into  a  reality.  Thus  it  is  distinctly 
stated  in  the  Bible,  "  Not  many  are  wise  "  {ib.,  xxxii.  9)  ;  also  our  Sages  say, 
"  I  noticed  how  few  were  those  who  attained  to  a  higher  degree  of  perfec- 
tion "  (B.  T.  Succah  45(j).  There  are  many  things  which  obstruct  the 
path  to  perfection,  and  which  keep  man  away  from  it.  Where  can  he  find 
sufficient  preparation  and  leisure  to  learn  all  that  is  necessary  in  order  to 
develop  that  perfection  which  he  has  in  potentia  ? 

Third  Reason. — The  preparatory  studies  are  of  long  duration,  and  man,  in 
his  natural  desire  to  reach  the  goal,  finds  them  frequently  too  wearisome,  and 
does  not  wish  to  be  troubled  by  them.  Be  convinced  that,  if  man  were  able 
to  reach  the  end  without  preparatory  studies,  such  studies  would  not  be 
preparatory  but  tiresome  and  utterly  superfluous.  Suppose  you  awaken  any 
person,  even  the  most  simple,  as  if  from  sleep,  and  you  say  to  him,  Do  you 
not  desire  to  know  what  the  heavens  are,  what  is  their  number  and  their  form ; 
what  beings  are  contained  in  them  ;  what  the  angels  are  ;  how  the  creation 
of  the  whole  world  took  place  ;  what  is  its  purpose,  and  what  is  the  relation 
of  its  various  parts  to  each  other  ;  what  is  the  nature  of  the  soul ;  how  it 
enters  the  body  ;  whether  it  has  an  independent  existence,  and  if  so,  how  it 
can  exist  independently  of  the  body  ;  by  what  means  and  to  what  purpose, 
and  similar  problems.  He  would  undoubtedly  say  "  Yes,"  and  show  a 
natural  desire  for  the  true  knowledge  of  these  things ;  but  he  will  wish  to 
satisfy  that  desire  and  to  attain  to  that  knowledge  by  listening  to  a  few  words 
from  you.  Ask  him  to  interrupt  his  usual  pursuits  for  a  week,  till  he  learn 
all  this,  he  would  not  do  it,  and  would  be  satisfied  and  contented  with 
imaginary  and  misleading  notions ;  he  would  refuse  to  believe  that  there  is 
anything  which  requires  preparatory  studies  and  persevering  research. 

You,  however,  know  how  all  these  subjects  are  connected  together ;  for  there 
is  nothing  else  in  existence  but  God  and  His  works,  the  latter  including  all 
existing  things  besides  Him  ;  we  can  only  obtain  a  knowledge  of  Him  through 
His  works ;  His  works  give  evidence  of  His  existence,  and  show  what  must 
be  assumed  concerning  Him,  that  is  to  say,  what  must  be  attributed  to  Him 


46  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

either  affirmatively  or  negatively.  It  is  thus  necessary  to  examine  all  things 
according  to  their  essence,  to  infer  from  every  species  such  true  and  well 
established  propositions  as  may  assist  us  in  the  solution  of  metaphysical  prob- 
lems. Again,  many  propositions  based  on  the  nature  of  numbers  and  the 
properties  of  geometrical  figures,  are  useful  in  examining  things  which  must 
be  negatived  in  reference  to  God,  and  these  negations  will  lead  us  to  further 
inferences.  You  \vill  certainly  not  doubt  the  necessity  of  studying  astronomy 
and  physics,  if  you  are  desirous  of  comprehending  the  relation  between  the 
world  and  Providence  as  it  is  in  reality,  and  not  according  to  imagination. 
There  are  also  many  subjects  of  speculation,  which,  though  not  preparing  the 
way  for  metaphysics,  help  to  train  the  reasoning  power,  enabling  it  to  under- 
stand the  nature  of  a  proof,  and  to  test  truth  by  characteristics  essential  to 
it.  They  remove  the  confusion  arising  in  the  minds  of  most  thinkers,  who 
confound  accidental  with  essential  properties,  and  likewise  the  wrong 
opinions  resulting  therefrom.  We  may  add,  that  although  they  do  not  form 
the  basis  for  metaphysical  research,  they  assist  in  forming  a  correct  notion  of 
these  things,  and  are  certainly  useful  in  many  other  things  connected  with 
that  discipline.  Consequently  he  who  wishes  to  attain  to  human  perfection, 
must  therefore  first  study  Logic,  next  the  various  branches  of  Mathematics 
in  their  proper  order,  then  Physics,  and  lastly  Metaphysics.  We  find  that 
many  who  have  advanced  to  a  certain  point  in  the  study  of  these  disciplines 
become  weary,  and  stop  ;  that  others,  who  are  endowed  with  sufficient 
capacity,  are  interrupted  in  their  studies  by  degth,  which  surprises  them 
while  still  engaged  with  the  preliminary  course.  Now,  if  no  knowledge  what- 
ever had  been  given]  to  us  by  means  of  tradition,  and  if  we  had  not  been 
brought  to  the  belief  in  a  thing  through  the  medium  of  similes,  we  would 
have  been  bound  to  form  a  perfect  notion  of  things  with  their  essential 
characteristics,  and  to  believe  only  what  we  could  prove  :  a  goal  which  could 
only  be  attained  by  long  preparation.  In  such  a  case  most  people  would  die, 
without  having  known  whether  there  was  a  God  or  not,  much  less  that  cer- 
tain things  must  be  asserted  about  Him,  and  other  things  denied  as  defects. 
From  such  a  fate  not  even  "  one  of  a  city  or  two  of  a  family  "  (Jer.  iii.  14) 
would  have  escaped. 

As  regards  the  privileged  few,  "  the  rentnant  whom  the  Lord  calls  "  (Joel 
iii.  5),  they  only  attain  the  perfection  at  which  they  aim  after  due  preparatory 
labour.  The  necessity  of  such  a  preparation  and  the  need  of  such  a  training 
for  the  acquisition  of  real  knowledge,  has  been  plainly  stated  by  King  Solo- 
mon in  the  following  words  :  "  If  the  iron  be  blunt,  and  he  do  not  whet  the 
edge,  then  must  he  put  to  more  strength  ;  and  it  is  profitable  to  prepare  for 
wisdom  "  (Eccles.  x.  10)  ;  "  Hear  counsel,  and  receive  instruction,  that  thou 
mayest  be  wise  in  thy  latter  end  "  (Prov.  xix.  20). 

There  is  still  another  urgent  reason  why  the  preliminary  disciplines  should 
be  studied  and  understood.  During  the  study  many  doubts  present  them- 
selves, and  the  difficulties,  or  the  objections  raised  against  certain  assertions, 
are  soon  understood,  just  as  the  demoHtion  of  a  building  is  easier  than  its 
erection  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  an  assertion,  or  to 
remove  any  doubts,  without  having  recourse  to  several  propositions  taken  from 
these  preliminary  studies.  Pie  who  approaches  metaphysical  problems  without 
proper  preparation  is  like  a  person  who  journeys  towards  a  certain  place,  and 


ON    THE    STUDY   OF    METAPHYSICS  47 

on  the  road  falls  into  a  deep  pit,  out  of  which  he  cannot  rise,  and  he  must 
perish  there  ;  if  he  had  not  gone  forth,  but  had  remained  at  home,  it  would 
have  been  better  for  him. 

Solomon  has  expatiated  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  on  sluggards  and  their 
indolence,  by  which  he  figuratively  refers  to  indolence  in  the  search  after 
wisdom.  He  thus  speaks  of  a  man  who  desires  to  know  the  final  results,  but 
does  not  exert  himself  to  understand  the  preliminary  disciplines  which  lead 
to  them,  doing  nothing  else  but  desire.  "  The  desire  of  the  slothful  killeth 
him  ;  for  his  hands  refuse  to  labour.  He  coveteth  greedily  all  the  day  long  ; 
but  the  righteous  giveth,  and  spareth  not  "  (Prov.  xxi.  25,  26)  ;  that  is  to 
say,  if  the  desire  killeth  the  slothful,  it  is  because  he  neglects  to  seek  the  thing 
which  might  satisfy  his  desire,  he  does  nothing  but  desire,  and  hopes  to  obtain 
a  thing  without  using  the  means  to  reach  it.  It  would  be  better  for  him  were 
he  without  that  desire.  Observe  how  the  end  of  the  simile  throws  light  on 
its  beginning.  It  concludes  with  the  words  "  but  the  righteous  giveth,  and 
spareth  not  "  ;  the  antithesis  of  "  righteous  "  and  "  slothful  "  can  only  be 
justified  on  the  basis  of  our  interpretation.  Solomon  thus  indicates  that 
only  such  a  man  is  righteous  who  gives  to  everything  its  due  portion  ;  that 
is  to  say,  who  gives  to  the  study  of  a  thing  the  whole  time  required  for  it, 
and  docs  not  devote  any  part  of  that  time  to  another  purpose.  The  passage 
may  therefore  be  paraphrased  thus  :  And  the  righteous  man  devotes  his  ways 
to  wisdom,  and  does  not  withhold  any  of  them."  Comp.  "  Give  not  thy 
strength  unto  women  "  (Prov.  xxxi.  3). 

The  majority  of  scholars,  that  is  to  say,  the  most  famous  in  science,  are 
afflicted  with  this  failing,  viz.,  that  of  hurrying  at  once  to  the  final  results, 
and  of  speaking  about  them,  without  treating  of  the  preliminary  disciplines. 
Led  by  folly  or  ambition  to  disregard  those  preparatory  studies,  for  the 
attainment  of  which  they  are  either  incapable  or  too  idle,  some  scholars  en- 
deavour to  prove  that  these  are  injurious  or  superfluous.  On  reflection  the 
truth  will  become  obvious. 

The  Fourth  Reason  is  taken  from  the  physical  constitution  of  man.  It 
has  been  proved  that  moral  conduct  is  a  preparation  for  intellectual  progress, 
and  that  only  a  man  whose  character  is  pure,  calm  and  steadfast,  can 
attain  to  intellectual  perfection ;  that  is,  acquire  correct  conceptions. 
Many  men  are  naturally  so  constituted  that  all  perfection  is  impossible  ; 
e.g.,  he  whose  heart  is  very  warm  and  is  himself  very  powerful,  is  sure  to  be 
passionate,  though  he  tries  to  counteract  that  disposition  by  training  ;  he 
whose  testicles  are  warm,  humid,  and  vigorous,  and  the  organs  connected 
therewith  are  surcharged,  will  not  easily  refrain  from  sin,  even  if  he  makes 
great  efforts  to  restrain  himself.  You  also  find  persons  of  great  levity  and 
rashness,  whose  excited  manners  and  wild  gestures  prove  that  their  constitut- 
tion  is  in  disorder,  and  their  temperament  so  bad  that  it  cannot  be  cured. 
Such  persons  can  never  attain  to  perfection  ;  it  is  utterly  useless  to  occupy 
oneself  with  them  on  such  a  subject  [as  Metaphysics].  For  this  science  is,  as 
you  know,  different  from  the  science  of  Medicine  and  of  Geometrv,  and, 
from  the  reason  already  mentioned,  it  is  not  every  person  who  is  capable  of 
approaching  it.  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  study  it  successfully  without 
moral  preparation  ;  he  must  acquire  the  highest  degree  of  uprightness  and 
integrity,  "  for  the  froward  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord,  but  His  secret  is 


48  GVIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

with  the  righteous  "  (Prov.  iii.  32).  Therefore  it  was  considered  inadvisable 
to  teach  it  to  young  men  ;  nay,  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  comprehend  it, 
on  account  of  the  heat  of  their  blood  and  the  flame  of  youth,  which  confuses 
their  minds ;  that  heat,  which  causes  all  the  disorder,  must  first  disappear; 
they  must  have  become  moderate  and  settled,  humble  in  their  hearts,  and 
subdued  in  their  temperament ;  only  then  will  they  be  able  to  arrive  at  the 
highest  degree  of  the  perception  of  God,  i.e.,  the  study  of  Metaphysics,  which 
is  called  Ma^aseh  Mercabah  Comp.  "  The  Lord  is  nigh  unto  them  that 
are  of  a  broken  heart  "  (Ps.  xxxiv.  18)  ;  "I  dwell  in  the  high  and  lofty  place, 
with  him  also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit ;  to  revive  the  spirit  of 
the  humble,  and  to  revive  the  heart  of  the  contrite  ones  "  (Isa.  Ivii.  15). 

Therefore  the  rule,  "  the  headings  of  the  sections  may  be  confided  to  him," 
is  further  restricted  in  the  Talmud,  in  the  following  way  :  The  headings  of 
the  sections  must  only  be  handed  down  to  an  Ab-bet-din  (President  of  the 
Court),  whose  heart  is  full  of  care,  i.e.,  in  whom  wisdom  is  united  with 
humility,  meekness,  and  a  great  dread  of  sin.  It  is  further  stated  there  : 
"  The  secrets  of  the  Law  can  only  be  communicated  to  a  counsellor,  scholar, 
and  good  orator."  These  qualities  can  only  be  acquired  if  the  physical  con- 
stitution of  the  student  favour  their  development.  You  certainly  know  that 
some  persons,  though  exceedingly  able,  are  very  weak  in  giving  counsel,  while 
others  are  ready  with  proper  counsel  and  good  advice  in  social  and  political 
matters.  A  person  so  endowed  is  called  "  counsellor  "  and  may  be  unable 
to  comprehend  purely  abstract  notions,  even  such  as  are  similar  to  common 
sense.  He  is  unacquainted  with  them,  and  has  no  talent  whatever  for  them  ; 
we  apply  to  him  the  words  :  "  Wherefore  is  there  a  price  in  the  hand  of  a 
fool  to  get  wisdom,  seeing  he  hath  no  heart  to  it  ?  "  (Prov.  xvii.  16).  Others 
are  intelligent  and  naturally  clear-sighted,  able  to  convey  complicated  ideas 
in  concise  and  well  chosen  language, — such  a  person  is  called  "  a  good 
orator,"  but  he  has  not  been  engaged  in  the  pursuit  of  science,  or  has  not 
acquired  any  knowledge  of  it.  Those  who  have  actually  acquired  a  know- 
ledge of  the  sciences,  are  called  "  wise  in  arts  "  (or  "  scholars  ")  ;  the  He- 
brew term  for  "  wise  in  arts  " — hakam  harashim — has  been  explained  in 
the  Talmud  as  implying,  that  when  such  a  man  speaks,  all  become,  as  it  were, 
speechless. 

Now,  consider  how,  in  the  writings  of  the  Rabbis,  the  admission  of  a  person 
into  discourses  on  metaphysics  is  made  dependent  on  distinction  in  social 
qualities,  and  study  of  philosophy,  as  well  as  on  the  possession  of  clear- 
sightedness, intelligence,  eloquence,  and  ability  to  communicate  things  by 
slight  allusions.  If  a  person  satisfies  these  requirem.ents,  the  secrets  of  the 
Law  are  confided  to  him.  In  the  same  place  we  also  read  the  following  pas- 
sage : — R.  Jochanan  said  to  R.  Elasar,  "  Come,  I  will  teach  you  Mwaseh 
Mercabah."  The  reply  was,  "  I  am  not  yet  old,"  or  in  other  words,  I  have 
not  yet  become  old,  I  still  perceive  in  myself  the  hot  blood  and  the  rashness 
of  youth.  You  learn  from  this  that,  in  addition  to  the  above-named  good 
quahties,  a  certain  age  is  also  required.  How,  then,  could  any  person  speak 
on  these  metaphysical  themes  in  the  presence  of  ordinary  people,  of  children, 
and  of  women  ! 

Fifth  Reason. — Man  is  disturbed  in  his  intellectual  occupation  by  the 
necessity  of  looking  after  the  material  wants  of  the  body,  especially  if  the 


ON    THE    STUDY    OF    METAPHYSICS  49 

necessity  of  providing  for  wife  and  children  be  superadded  ;  much  more  so 
if  he  seeks  superfluities  in  addition  to  his  ordinary  wants,  for  by  custom  and 
bad  habits  these  become  a  powerful  motive.  Even  the  perfect  man  to  whom 
we  have  referred,  if  too  busy  with  these  necessary  things,  much  more  so  if 
busy  with  unnecessary  things,  and  filled  with  a  great  desire  for  them — must 
weaken  or  altogether  lose  his  desire  for  study,  to  which  he  will  apply  himself 
with  interruption,  lassitude,  and  want  of  attention.  He  will  not  attain  to 
that  for  which  he  is  fitted  by  his  abilities,  or  he  will  acquire  imperfect  know- 
ledge, a  confused  mass  of  true  and  false  ideas.  For  these  reasons  it  was 
proper  that  the  study  of  Metaphysics  should  have  been  exclusively  cultivated 
by  privileged  persons,  and  not  entrusted  to  the  common  people.  It  is  not 
for  the  beginner,  and  he  should  abstain  from  it,  as  the  little  child  has  to 
abstain  from  taking  solid  food  and  from  carrying  heavy  weights. 

CHAPTER  XXXV 

Do  not  think  that  what  we  have  laid  down  in  the  preceding  chapters  on  the 
importance,  obscurity,  and  difficulty  of  the  subject,  and  its  unsuitableness 
for  communication  to  ordinary  persons,  includes  the  doctrine  of  God's  incor- 
poreality  and  His  exemption  from  all  affections  {iraOif).  This  is  not  the 
case.  For  in  the  same  way  as  all  people  must  be  informed,  and  even  children 
must  be  trained  in  the  belief  that  God  is  One,  and  that  none  besides  Him  is 
to  be  worshipped,  so  must  all  be  taught  by  simple  authority  that  God  is 
incorporeal ;  that  there  is  no  similarity  in  any  way  whatsoever  between  Him 
and  His  creatures ;  that  His  existence  is  not  like  the  existence  of  His  crea- 
tures. His  life  not  like  that  of  any  living  being.  His  wisdom  not  like  the 
wisdom  of  the  wisest  of  men  ;  and  that  the  difference  between  Him  and  His 
creatures  is  not  merely  quantitative,  but  absolute  [as  between  two  indivi- 
duals of  two  diflFerent  classes]  ;  I  mean  to  say  that  all  must  understand  that 
our  wisdom  and  His,  or  our  power  and  His  do  not  differ  quantitatively 
or  qualitatively,  or  in  a  similar  manner ;  for  two  things,  of  which  the  one 
is  strong  and  the  other  weak,  are  necessarily  similar,  belong  to  the  same 
class,  and  can  be  included  in  one  definition.  The  same  is  the  case  viath  all 
other  comparisons ;  they  can  only  be  made  between  two  things  belonging 
to  the  same  class,  as  has  been  shown  in  works  on  Natural  Science.  Any- 
thing predicated  of  God  is  totally  different  from  our  attributes  ;  no  defini- 
tion can  comprehend  both  ;  therefore  His  existence  and  that  of  any  other 
being  totally  differ  from  each  other,  and  the  term  existence  is  applied  to  both 
homonymously,  as  I  shall  explain. 

This  suffices  for  the  guidance  of  children  and  of  ordinary  persons  who  must 
believe  that  there  is  a  Being  existing,  perfect,  incorporeal,  not  inherent  in  a 
body  as  a  force  in  it — God,  who  is  above  all  kinds  of  deficiency,  above  all 
affections.  But  the  question  concerning  the  attributes  of  God,  their  inad- 
missibility, and  the  meaning  of  those  attributes  which  are  ascribed  to  Him  ; 
concerning  the  Creation,  His  Providence,  in  providing  for  everything ; 
concerning  His  will.  His  perception.  His  knowledge  of  everything ;  con- 
cerning prophecy  and  its  various  degrees ;  concerning  the  meaning  of  His 
names  which  imply  the  idea  of  unity,  though  they  are  more  tlsan  one  ;  all 
these  tilings  are  very  difficult  problems,  the  true  "  Secrets  of  the  Law  "  the 


50  GUIDE  FOR  THE  PERPLEXED 

"  secrets  "  mentioned  so  frequently  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets,  and  in  the 
words  of  our  Teachers,  the  subjects  of  which  we  should  only  mention  the 
headings  of  the  chapters,  as  we  have  already  stated,  and  only  in  the  presence 
of  a  person  satisfying  the  above-named  conditions. 

That  God  is  incorporeal,  that  He  cannot  be  compared  with  His  creatures, 
that  He  is  not  subject  to  external  influence  ;  these  are  things  which  must 
be  explained  to  every  one  according  to  his  capacity,  and  they  must  be  taught 
by  way  of  tradition  to  children  and  women,  to  the  stupid  and  ignorant,  as 
they  are  taught  that  God  is  One,  that  He  is  eternal,  and  that  He  alone  is  to 
be  worshipped.  Without  incorporeality  there  is  no  unity,  for  a  corporeal 
thing  is  in  the  first  case  not  simple,  but  composed  of  matter  and  form  which 
are  two  separate  things  by  definition,  and  secondly,  as  it  has  extension  it  is 
also  divisible.  When  persons  have  received  this  doctrine,  and  have  been 
trained  in  this  belief,  and  are  in  consequence  at  a  loss  to  reconcile  it  with  the 
writings  of  the  Prophets,  the  meaning  of  the  latter  must  be  made  clear  and 
explained  to  them  by  pointing  out  the  homonymity  and  the  figurative 
application  of  certain  terms  discussed  in  this  part  of  the  work.  Their  belief 
in  the  unity  of  God  and  in  the  words  of  the  Prophets  will  then  be  a  true  and 
perfect  belief. 

Those  who  are  not  sufficiently  intelligent  to  comprehend  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  these  passages  in  the  Bible,  or  to  understand  that  the  same  term 
admits  of  two  different  interpretations,  may  simply  be  told  that  the  scrip- 
tural passage  is  clearly  understood  by  the  wise,  but  that  they  should  content 
themselves  with  knowing  that  God  is  incorporeal,  that  He  is  never  subject 
to  external  influence,  as  passivity  implies  a  change,  while  God  is  entirely  free 
from  all  change,  that  He  cannot  be  compared  to  anything  besides  Himself, 
that  no  definition  includes  Him  together  with  any  other  being,  that  the 
words  of  the  Prophets  are  true,  and  that  difficulties  met  with  may  be  ex- 
plained on  this  principle.  This  may  suffice  for  that  class  of  persons,  and  it  is 
not  proper  to  leave  them  in  the  belief  that  God  is  corporeal,  or  that  He  has 
any  of  the  properties  of  material  objects,  just  as  there  is  no  need  to  leave  them 
in  the  belief  that  God  does  not  exist,  that  there  are  more  Gods  than  one,  or 
that  any  other  being  may  be  worshipped. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 

I  SHALL  explain  to  you,  when  speaking  on  the  attributes  of  God,  in  what 
sense  we  can  say  that  a  particular  thing  pleases  Him,  or  excites  His  anger 
and  His  wrath,  and  in  reference  to  certain  persons  that  God  was  pleased  with 
them,  was  angry  wdth  them,  or  was  in  wrath  against  them.  This  is  not  the 
subject  of  the  present  chapter  ;  I  intend  to  explain  in  it  what  I  am  now 
going  to  say.  You  must  know,  that  in  examiniug  the  Law  and  the  books  of 
the  Prophets,  you  will  not  find  the  expressions  "  burning  anger,"  "provo- 
cation, "  or  "  jealousy  "  applied  to  God  except  in  reference  to  idolatry ;  and 
that  none  but  the  idolater  called  "  enemy,"  "  adversary,"  or  "  hater  of  the 
Lord.  "  Comp.  "  And  ye  serve  other  gods,.  .  .  and  then  the  Lord's  wrath 
will  be  kindled  against  you  "  (Deut.  xi.  i6,  17)  ;  "  Lest  the  anger  of  the  Lord 
thy  God  be  kindled  against  thee. "  etc.  (ib.  vi.  15)  ;  "  To  provoke  Jiim  to 
anger  through  the  work  of  your  hands  "  (ib.  xxxi.  29)  ;   "  They  have  moved 


ON    THE    STUDY    OF   METAPHYSICS  51 

me  to  jealousy  with  that  wliicli  is  not  God  ;  they  have  provoked  me  to  anger 
with  their  vanities  "  (ib.  xxxii.  21)  ;  "  For  the  Lord  thy  God  is  a  jealous 
God  "  (ib.  vi.  15)  ;  "  Why  have  they  provoked  me  to  anger  with  their  graven 
images,  and  with  strange  vanities  ?  "  (Jer.  viii.  19)  ;  "  Because  of  the  pro- 
voking of  his  sons  and  of  his  daughters  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  19)  ;  "  For  a  fire  is 
kindled  in  mine  anger  "  (ib.  22)  ;  "  The  Lord  will  take  vengeance  on  His 
adversaries,  and  he  reserveth  wrath  for  his  enemies  "  (Nah.  i.  2) ;  "  And 
repayeth  them  that  hate  ?Iim  "  (Deut.  vii.  10)  ;  "  Until  He  hath  driven  out 
His  enemies  from  before  Ilim  "  (Num.  xxxii.  21)  ;  "Which  the  Lord  thy 
God  hateth  "  (Deut.  xvi.  22)  ;  "  For  every  abomination  to  the  Lord,  which 
He  hateth,  have  they  done  unto  their  gods  "  {ib.  xii.  3 1).  Instances  like  these 
are  innumerable  ;  and  if  you  examine  all  the  examples  met  with  in  the  holy 
writings,  you  will  find  that  they  confirm  our  view. 

The  Prophets  in  their  writings  laid  special  stress  on  this,  because  it  con- 
cerns errors  in  reference  to  God,  i.e.,  it  concerns  idolatry.  For  if  any  one 
believes  that,  e.g.,  Zaid  is  standing,  while  in  fact  he  is  sitting,  he  does  not 
deviate  from  truth  so  much  as  one  who  believes  that  fire  is  under  the  air, 
or  that  water  is  under  the  earth,  or  that  the  earth  is  a  plane,  or  things  similar 
to  these.  The  latter  does  not  deviate  so  much  from  truth  as  one  who  be- 
lieves that  the  sun  consists  of  fire,  or  that  the  heavens  form  a  hemisphere, 
and  similar  things ;  in  the  third  instance  the  deviation  from  truth  is  less  than 
the  deviation  of  a  man  who  believes  that  angels  eat  and  drink,  and  the  like. 
The  latter  again  deviates  less  from  truth  than  one  who  believes  that  some- 
thing besides  God  is  to  be  worshipped  ;  for  ignorance  and  error  concerning 
a  great  thing,  i.e.,  a  thing  which  has  a  high  position  in  the  universe,  are  of 
greater  importance  than  those  which  refer  to  a  thing  which  occupies  a  lower 
place  ;— by  "  error  "  I  mean  the  behef  that  a  thing  is  different  from  what  it 
really  is ;  by  "  ignorance,"  the  want  of  knowledge  respecting  things  the 
knowledge  of  which  can  be  obtained. 

If  a  person  does  not  know  the  measure  of  the  cone,  or  the  sphericity  of 
the  sun,  it  is  not  so  important  as  not  to  know  whether  God  exists,  or  whether 
the  world  exists  without  a  God  ;  and  if  a  man  assumes  that  the  cone  is  half 
(of  the  cylinder),  or  that  the  sun  is  a  circle,  it  is  not  so  injurious  as  to  believe 
that  God  is  more  than  One.  You  must  know  that  idolaters  when  worship- 
ping idols  do  not  believe  that  there  is  no  God  besides  them  ;  and  no  idolater 
ever  did  assume  that  any  image  made  of  metal,  stone,  or  wood  has  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  and  still  governs  them.  Idolatry  is  founded  on  the 
idea  that  a  particular  form  represents  the  agent  between  God  and  His  crea- 
tures. This  is  plainly  said  in  passages  like  the  following  :  "  Who  would  not 
fear  thee,  O  king  of  nations  ?  "  (Jer.  x.  7)  ;  "  And  in  every  place  incense  is 
offered  unto  my  name  "  (Mai.  i.  li)  ;  by  "  my  name  "  allusion  is  made  to 
the  Being  which  is  called  by  them  [i.e.,  the  idolaters]  "  the  First  Cause." 
We  have  already  explained  this  in  our  larger  work  {Mishneh  Torah,  I.  On 
Idolatry,  chap,  i.),  and  none  of  our  co-religionists  can  doubt  it. 

The  infidels,  however,  though  believing  in  the  existence  of  the  Creator, 
attack  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  God,  namely,  the  service  and  worship 
which  was  commanded,  in  order  that  the  belief  of  the  people  in  His  existence 
should  be  firmly  established,  in  the  words,  "  And  you  shall  serve  the  Lord," 
etc.  (Exod.  xxiii.  25).     By  transferring  that  prerogative  to  other  beings,  they 


52  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

cause  the  people,  who  only  notice  the  rites,  without  comprehending  their 
meaning  or  the  true  character  of  the  being  which  is  worshipped,  to  renounce 
their  belief  in  the  existence  of  God.  They  were  therefore  punished  with 
death  ;  comp.  "  Thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing  that  breatheth  "  (Deut.  xx. 
l6).  The  object  of  this  commandment,  as  is  distinctly  stated,  is  to  extirpate 
that  false  opinion,  in  order  that  other  men  should  not  be  corrupted  by  it  any 
more  ;  in  the  words  of  the  Bible  "  that  they  teach  you  not,"  etc.  (ib.  1 8). 
They  are  called  "  enemies,"  "  foes,"  "  adversaries  "  ;  by  worshipping  idols 
they  are  said  to  provoke  God  to  jealousy,  anger,  and  wrath.  How  great,  then, 
must  be  the  offence  of  him  who  has  a  wrong  opinion  of  God  Himself,  and  be- 
lieves Him  to  be  different  from  what  He  truly  is,  i.e.,  assumes  that  He  does 
not  exist,  that  He  consists  of  two  elements,  that  He  is  corporeal,  that  He  is 
subject  to  external  influence,  or  ascribes  to  Him  any  defect  whatever.  Such 
a  person  is  undoubtedly  worse  than  he  who  worships  idols  in  the  belief  that 
they,  as  agents,  can  do  good  or  evil. 

Therefore  bear  in  mind  that  by  the  belief  in  the  corporeality  or  in  any- 
thing connected  with  corporeality,  you  would  provoke  God  to  jealousy  and 
wrath,  kindle  His  fire  and  aneer,  become  His  foe.  His  enemy,  and  His  adver- 
sary in  a  higher  degree  than  by  the  worship  of  idols.  If  you  think  that  there 
is  an  excuse  for  those  who  believe  in  the  corporeality  of  God  on  the  ground 
of  their  training,  their  ignorance  or  their  defective  comprehension,  you  must 
make  the  same  concession  to  the  worshippers  of  idols ;  their  worship  is  due 
to  ignorance,  or  to  early  training,  "  they  continue  in  the  custom  of  their 
fathers."  (T.  B.  HuUin,  i  -^a)  You  will  perhaps  say  that  the  literal  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible  causes  men  to  fall  into  that  doubt,  but  you  must  know 
that  idolaters  were  likewise  brought  to  their  belief  by  false  imaginations  and 
ideas.  There  is  no  excuse  whatever  for  those  who,  being  unable  to  think  for 
themselves,  do  not  accept  [the  doctrine  of  the  incorporeality  of  God]  from  the 
true  philosophers.  I  do  not  consider  those  men  as  infidels  who  are  unable 
to  prove  the  incorporeality,  but  I  hold  those  to  be  so  who  do  not  believe 
it,  especially  when  thev  see  that  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  avoid  [in  reference 
to  God]  expressions  implying  corporeality  as  much  as  possible.  This  is  all 
I  intended  to  say  in  this  chapter. 

CHAPTER   XXXVII 

The  Hebrew  term  pantm  (face)  is  homonymous ;  most  of  its  various  mean- 
ings have  a  figurative  character.  It  denotes  in  the  first  place  the  face  of  a 
living  being  ;  comp.  "  And  all  faces  are  turned  into  paleness  "  (Jer.  xxx.  6)  ; 
"  Wherefore  are  your  faces  so  sad  ?  "  (Gen.  xl.  7).  In  this  sense  the  term 
occurs  frequently. 

The  next  meaning  of  the  word  is  "  anger  "  ;  comp.  "  And  her  anger 
(j)aneha)  was  gone  "  (i  Sam.  i.  18).  Accordingly,  the  term  is  frequently  used 
in  reference  to  God  in  the  sense  of  anger  and  wrath  ;  comp.  "  The  anger 
(pene)  of  the  Lord  hath  divided  them  "  (Lam.  iv.  16)  ;  "  The  anger  (pcfie)  of 
the  Lord  is  against  them  that  do  evil  "  (Ps.  xxxiv.  17)  ;  "  Mine  anger  (j>anat) 
shall  go  and  I  will  give  thee  rest  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  14)  ;  "  Then  will  I  set  mine 
anger  "  (panai)  (Lev.  xx.  3)  ;  there  are  many  other  instances. 

Another  meaning  of  the  word  is  "  the  presence  and  existence  of  a  person  "  ; 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  53 

comp.  "  He  died  in  the  presence  (j>ene)  [i.e.,  in  the  lifetime]  of  all  his  breth- 
ren "  (Gen.  XXV.  18)  ;  "  And  in  the  presence  (pair)  of  all  the  people  I  will 
be  glorified  "  (Lev.  x.  3)  ;  ■"  He  will  surely  curse  thee  in  thy  very  presence  " 
(j)aneka)  (Job  i.  li).  In  the  same  sense  the  word  is  used  in  the  following 
passage,  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  face  to  face,"  i.e.,  both  being 
present,  without  any  intervening  medium  between  them.  Comp.  "  Come, 
let  us  look  one  another  in  the  face  "  (2  Kings  xiv.  8)  ;  and  also  "  The  Lord 
talked  with  you  face  to  face  "  (Deut.  v.  4)  ;  instead  of  which  we  read  more 
plainly  in  another  place,  "  Ye  heard  the  voice  of  the  words,  but  saw  no 
similitude  ;  only  ye  heard  a  voice  "  (ib.  iv.  12).  The  hearing  of  the  voice 
without  seeing  any  similitude  is  termed  "  face  to  face."  Similarly  do  the 
words,  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  face  to  face  "  correspond  to 
"  There  he  heard  the  voice  of  one  speaking  unto  him  "  (Num.  vii.  89),  in  the 
description  of  God's  speaking  to  Moses.  Thus  it  will  be  clear  to  you  that 
the  perception  of  the  Divine  voice  without  the  intervention  of  an  angel  is 
expressed  by  "  face  to  face."  In  the  same  sense  the  word  panim  must  be 
understood  in  "  And  my  face  (fanai)  shall  not  be  seen  "  (Exod,  xxxiii.  23)  ; 
i.e.,  my  true  existence,  as  it  is,  cannot  be  comprehended. 

The  word  panim  is  also  used  in  Hebrew  as  an  adverb  of  place,  in  the  sense 
of  "  before,"  or  "  between  the  hands."  In  this  sense  it  is  frequently  em- 
ployed in  reference  to  God  ;  so  also  in  the  passage,  "  And  my  face  (j>anat) 
shall  not  be  seen,"  according  to  Onkelos,  who  renders  it,  "  And  those  before 
me  shall  not  be  seen."  He  finds  here  an  allusion  to  the  fact,  that  there  are 
also  higher  created  beings  of  such  superiority  that  their  true  nature  cannot 
be  perceived  by  man  ;  viz.,  the  ideals,  separate  intellects,  which  in  their 
relation  to  God  are  described  as  being  constantly  before  Him,  or  between 
His  hands,  i.e.,  as  enjoying  uninterruptedly  the  closest  attention  of  Divine 
Providence.  He,  i.e.,  Onkelos,  considers  that  the  things  which  are  described 
as  completely  perceptible  are  those  beings  which,  as  regards  existence,  are 
inferior  to  the  ideals,  viz.,  substance  and  form  ;  in  reference  to  which  we  are 
told,  "  And  thou  shalt  see  that  which  is  behind  me  "  (ibid.),  i.e.,  beings,  from 
which,  as  it  were,  I  turn  away,  and  which  I  leave  behind  me.  This  figure  is 
to  represent  the  utter  remoteness  of  such  beings  from  the  Deity.  You  shall 
later  on  (chap,  liv.)  hear  my  explanation  of  what  Moses,  our  teacher,  asked  for. 

The  word  is  also  used  as  an  adverb  of  time,  meaning  "  before."  Comp. 
"  In  former  time  (le-phanim)  in  Israel  "  (Ruth  iv.  7)  ;  "  Of  old  {le-phanim) 
hast  Thou  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth  "  (Ps.  cii.  25). 

Another  signification  of  the  word  is  "  attention  and  regard."  Comp. 
"Thou  shalt  not  have  regard  {;pene)  to  the  poor"  (Lev.  xx.  15);  "And  a 
person  receiving  attention  {panim)  "  (Isa.  iii.  3)  ;  "  Who  does  not  show  re- 
gard {panim)"  etc.  (Deut.  x.  17,  etc.).  The  woTdpanim  (face)  has  a  similar 
signification  in  the  blessing,  "  The  Lord  turn  his  face  to  thee  "  (i.e.,  The 
Lord  let  his  providence  accompany  thee),  "  and  give  thee  peace." 

CHAPTER   XXXVIII 

The  Hebrew  term  ahor  is  a  homonym.  It  is  a  noun,  signifying  "  back." 
Comp.  "  Behind  (atare)  the  tabernacle  "  (Exod.  xxvi.  12)  ;  "  The  spear  came 
out  behind  him  (aharav)  "  (2  Sam.  ii.  23). 


54  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

It  is  next  used  in  reference  to  time,  signifying  "  after  "  ;  "  neither  after 
him  {aharaz')  arose  there  any  like  him  "  (2  Kings  xxiii.  25)  ;  "  After  (ahar) 
these  things  "  (Gen.  xv.  l).     In  this  sense  the  word  occurs  frequently. 

The  term  includes  also  the  idea  of  following  a  thing  and  of  conforming 
with  the  moral  principles  of  some  other  being.  Comp.  "  Ye  shall  walk  after 
(ahare)  the  Lord,  your  God  "  (Deut.  xiii.  5)  ;  "  They  shall  walk  after  (ahare) 
the  Lord  "  (Hos.  xi.  10),  i.e.,  follow  His  will,  walk  in  the  way  of  His  actions, 
and  imitate  His  virtues ;  "  He  walked  after  (ahare)  the  commandment " 
(tb.  V.  1 1).  In  this  sense  the  word  occurs  in  Exodus  xxxiii.  20,  "  And  thou 
shalt  see  my  back  "  [ahorai)  ;  thou  shalt  perceive  that  which  follows  me,  is 
similar  to  me,  and  is  the  result  of  my  will,  i.e.,  all  tilings  created  by  me,  as 
will  be  explained  in  the  course  of  this  treatise. 

CHAPTER   XXXIX 

The  Hebrew  leb  (heart)  is  a  homonymous  noun,  signifying  that  organ  which 
is  the  source  of  life  to  all  beings  possessing  a  heart.  Comp.  "  And  thrust 
them  through  the  heart  of  Absalom  "  (l  Sam.  x^dii.  14). 

This  organ  being  in  the  middle  of  the  body,  the  word  has  been  figuratively 
applied  to  express  "  the  middle  part  of  a  thing."  Comp.  "  unto  the  midst 
Qeb)  of  heaven  "  (Deut.  iv.  11)  ;   "  the  midst  {labbath)  of  fire  "  (Exod.  iii.  2). 

It|further  denotes  "  thought."  Comp.  "  Went  not  mine  heart  with 
thee  ?  "  (2  Kings  v.  26),  i.e.,  I  was  with  thee  in  my  thought  when  a  certain 
event  happened.  Similarly  must  be  explained,  "  And  that  ye  seek  not 
after  your  own  'heart"  (Num.  xv.  39),  i.e.,  after  your  own  thoughts; 
"  Whose  heart  (i.e.,  whose  thought),  turneth  away  this  day  "  (Deut.  xxix.  18). 

The  word  further  signifies  "  counsel."  Comp.  "  All  the  rest  of  Israel 
were  of  one  heart  (i.e.,  had  one  plan)  to  make  David  king  "  (i  Chron. 
xii.  38) ;  "  but  fools  die  for  want  of  heart,"  i.e.,  of  counsel ;  "  My 
heart  (i.e.,  my  counsel)  shaU  not  turn  away  from  this  so  long  as  I  live  " 
(Job  xxvii.  6)  ;  for  this  sentence  is  preceded  by  the  words,  "  My  righteous- 
ness I  hold  fast,  and  wiU  not  let  it  go  "  ;  and  then  follows,  "  my  heart  shall 
never  turn  away  from  this." — As  regards  the  expression  yeheraf,  I  think  that 
it  may  be  compared  with  the  same  verb  in  the  form  nehrefet,  "  a  handmaid 
betrothed  {nehrefet)  to  a  man  "  (Lev.  xix.  20),  where  nehrefeth  is  similar  in 
meaning  to  the  Arabic  munharifat,  "  turning  away,"  and  signifies  "  turning 
from  the  state  of  slavery  to  that  of  marriage." 

Leb  (heart)  denotes  also  "  will "  ;  comp.  "  And  I  shall  give  you  pastors 
according  to  my  will  {libbi)  "  (Jer.  iii.  15),  "  Is  thine  heart  right  as  my  heart 
is  ?  "  (2  Kings  x.  15),  i.e.,  is  thy  will  right  as  my  will  is  ?  In  this  sense  the 
word  has  been  figuratively  applied  to  God.  Comp.  "  That  shall  do  according 
to  that  which  is  in  mine  heart  and  in  my  soul  "  (i  Sam.  ii.  35),  i.e.,  according 
to  My  will  ;  "  And  mine  eyes  and  mine  heart  (i.e..  My  providence  and  My 
will)  shall  be  there  perpetually  "  (i  Kings  ix.  3). 

The  word  is  also  used  in  the  sense  of  "  understanding."  Comp.  "  For 
vain  man  will  be  endowed  with  a  heart  "  (Job  xi.  12),  i.e.,  will  be  wise  ;  "  A 
wise  man's  heart  is  at  his  right  hand  "  (Eccles.  x.  2),  i.e.,  his  understanding  is 
engaged  in  perfect  thoughts,  the  highest  problems.  Instances  of  this  kind 
arc  numerous.     It  is  in  this  sense,  namely,  that  of  understanding,  that  the 


ON    HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  55 

word  is  used  whenever  figuratively  applied  to  God  ;  but  exceptionally  it  is 
also  used  in  the  sense  of  "  will."  It  must,  in  each  passage,  be  explained  in 
accordance  with  the  context.  Also,  in  the  following  and  similar  passages, 
it  signifies  "  understanding  "  ;  "  Consider  it  in  thine  heart  "  (Deut.  iv.  39)  ; 
"  And  none  considereth  in  his  heart  "  (Isa.  xliv.  19).  Thus,  also,  "  Yet  the 
Lord  hath  not  given  you  an  heart  to  perceive,"  is  identical  in  its  meaning 
with  "  Unto  thee  it  was  shown  that  thou  mightcst  know  "  (Deut.  iv.  35). 

As  to  the  passage,  "  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine 
heart  "  {lb.  vi.  5),  I  explain  "  with  all  thine  heart  "  to  mean  "  with  all  the 
powers  of  thine  heart,"  that  is,  with  all  the  powers  of  the  body,  for  they  all 
have  their  origin  in  the  heart ;  and  the  sense  of  the  entire  passage  is  :  make 
the  knowledge  of  God  the  aim  of  all  thy  actions,  as  we  have  stated  in  our 
Commentary  on  the  Mishnah  (Aboth,  Eight  Chapters,  v.),  and  in  our  Mishneh 
Torah,  yesode  hatorah,  chap.  ii.  2. 

CHAPTER  XL 

Ruah  is  a  homonym,  signifying  "  air,"  that  is,  one  of  the  four  elements. 
Comp.  "  And  the  air  of  God  moved  "  (Gen.  i.  2). 

It  denotes  also,  "  wind."  Comp.  "  And  the  east  wind  (ruah)  brought  the 
locusts  "  (Exod.  X.  13)  ;  "  west  wind  "  (ruah)  (ib.  19).  In  this  sense  the  word 
occurs  frequently. 

Next,  it  signifies  "  breath."  Comp.  "  A  breath  (ruah)  that  passeth  away, 
and  does  not  come  again  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  39)  ;  "  wherein  is  the  breath  (ruah) 
of  life  "  (Gen.  vii.  15). 

It  signifies  also  that  which  remains  of  man  after  his  death,  and  is  not  subject 
to  destruction.  Comp.  "  And  the  spirit  (ruah)  shall  return  unto  God  who 
gave  it  "  (Eccles.  xii.  7). 

Another  signification  of  this  word  is  "  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  pro- 
phets whereby  they  prophesy  " — as  we  shall  explain,  when  speaking  on  pro- 
phecy, as  far  as  it  is  opportune  to  discuss  this  subject  in  a  treatise  like  this. — 
Comp.  "  And  I  will  take  of  the  spirit  (ruah)  which  is  upon  thee,  and  will  put 
it  upon  them  "  (Num.  xi.  17)  ;  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  spirit  (ruah) 
rested  upon  them  "  (ib.  25)  ;  "  The  spirit  (ruah)  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me  " 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  2).     The  term  is  frequently  used  in  this  sense. 

The  meaning  of  "  intention,"  "  will,"  is  likewise  contained  in  the  word 
ruah.  Comp,  "A  fool  uttereth  all  his  spirit"  (ruah)  (Prov.  xxix.  11),  i.e., 
his  intention  and  will ;  "  And  the  spirit  (ruah)  of  Egypt  shall  fail  in  the  midst 
thereof,  and  I  will  destroy  the  counsel  thereof  "  (Isa.  xix.  3),  i.e.,  her  inten- 
tions will  be  frustrated,  and  her  plans  will  be  obscured  ;  "  Who  has  com- 
prehended the  spirit  (rualp)  of  the  Lord,  or  who  is  familiar  with  his  counsel 
that  he  may  tell  us  ?  "  (Isa.  xl.  13),  i.e.,  Who  knows  the  order  fixed  by  His 
will,  or  perceives  the  system  of  His  Providence  in  the  existing  world,  that  he 
may  tell  us  ?  as  we  shall  explain  in  the  chapters  in  which  we  shall  speak 
on  Providence. 

Thus  the  Hebrew  ruah,  when  used  in  reference  to  God,  has  generally  the 
fifth  signification  ;  sometimes,  however,  as  explained  above,  the  last  signi- 
fication, viz.,  "  will."  The  meaning  of  the  word  in  each  individual  case  is 
therefore  to  be  determined  by  the  context. 


56  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER   XLI 

The  Hebrew  nefesh  (soul)  is  a  homonymous  noun,  signifying  the  -vitality 
which  is  common  to  all  living,  sentient  beings.  E.g.  "  wherein  there  is  a 
living  soul "  (nefesh)  (Gen.  i.  30).  It  denotes  also  blood,"  as  in  "  Thou 
shalt  not  eat  the  blood  (nefesh)  with  the  meat "  (Deut.  xii.  23).  Another 
signification  of  the  term  is  "  reason,"  that  is,  the  distinguishing  characteristic 
of  man,  as  in  "  As  the  Lord  liveth  that  made  us  this  soul  "  (Jer.  xxxviii.  16). 
It  denotes  also  the  part  of  man  that  remains  after  his  death  (nefesh,  soul)  ; 
comp.  "  But  the  soul  (nefesh)  of  my  lord  shall  be  bound  in  the  bundle  of  life  " 
(l  Sam.  XXV.  29).  Lastly,  it  denotes  "  will  "  ;  comp.  "  To  bind  his  princes 
at  his  will  "  (be-nafsho)  (Ps.  cv.  22)  ;  Thou  wilt  not  deliver  me  unto  the 
will  (he-nefesh)  of  my  enemies  "  (Ps.  xli.  3)  ;  and  according  to  my  opinion,  it 
has  this  meaning  also  in  the  following  passages,  "  If  it  be  your  will  (nafshe- 
kem)  that  I  should  bury  my  dead  "  (Gen.  xxiii.  8)  ;  "  Though  Moses  and 
Samuel  stood  before  me,  yet  my  will  (nafshi)  could  not  be  toward  this  people  " 
(Jer.  xv.  i),  that  is,  I  had  no  pleasure  in  them,  I  did  not  wish  to  preserve 
them.  When  nefesh  is  used  in  reference  to  God,  it  has  the  meaning  ''  will," 
as  we  have  already  explained  with  reference  to  the  passage,  "  That  shall  do 
according  to  that  which  is  in  my  will  (bi-lebabi)  and  in  mine  intention  (be- 
nafshi)  "  (l  Sam.  ii.  35).  Similarly  we  explain  the  phrase,  "  And  his  will 
(nafsho)  to  trouble  Israel  ceased  "  (Judg.  x.  16).  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Uzziel 
[in  the  Targum  of  the  Prophets],  did  not  translate  this  passage,  because  he 
understood  nafshi  to  have  the  first  signification,  and  finding,  therefore,  in 
these  words  sensation  ascribed  to  God,  he  omitted  them  from  his  transla- 
tion. If,  however,  nefesh  be  here  taken  in  the  last  signification,  the  sentence 
can  well  be  explained.  For  in  the  passage  which  precedes,  it  is  stated  that 
Providence  abandoned  the  Israelites,  and  left  them  on  the  brink  of  death  ; 
then  they  cried  and  prayed  for  help,  but  in  vain.  When,  however,  they  had 
thoroughly  repented,  when  their  misery  had  increased,  and  their  enemy  had 
had  power  over  them.  He  showed  mercy  to  them,  and  His  will  to  continue 
their  trouble  and  misery  ceased.  Note  it  well,  for  it  is  remarkable.  The 
preposition  ba  in  this  passage  has  the  force  of  the  preposition  min  ("  from  " 
or  "  of")  ;  a.nd  ba'amal  is  identical  with  me^amal.  Grammarians  give  many 
instances  of  this  use  of  the  preposition  ba  :  "  And  that  which  remaineth 
of  (ba)  the  flesh  and  of  (ba)  the  bread  "  (Lev.  viii.  32)  ;  "  If  there  re- 
mains but  few  of  (ba)  the  years  "  (ib.  xxv.  52)  ;  "  Of  (ba)  the  strangers  and 
of  (ba)  those  born  in  the  land  "  (Exod.  xii.  19). 

CHAPTER   XLII 

llai  ("  living  ")  signifies  a  sentient  organism  (lit.  "  growing  "  and  "  having 
sensation  "),  comp.  "  Every  moving  thing  that  liveth  "  (Gen.  ix.  3)  ;  it  also 
denotes  recovery  from  a  severe  illness  :  "  And  was  recovered  (va-yehi)  of  his 
sickness "  (Isa.  xxxviii.  9)  ;  "  In  the  camp  till  they  recovered  "  (hayotam)  (Josh, 
v.   8)  ;   "  quick,  raw  (hai)  flesh  "  (Lev.  xiii.  10). 

Mavet  signifies  "  death  "  and  "  severe  illness,"  as  in  "  His  heart  died 
(va-yamot)  within  him,  and  he  became  as  a  stone  "  (i  Sam.  xxv.  37),  that  is, 
his  illness  was  severe.      For  this  reason  it  is  stated  concerning  the  son  of  the 


ON   HOMONYMS    IN    THE    BIBLE  57 

woman  of  Zarephath,  "  And  his  sickness  was  so  sore,  that  there  was  no  breath 
left  in  him  "  (i  Kings  xvii.  17).  The  simple  expression  va-yamoth  would 
have  given  the  idea  that  he  was  very  ill,  near  death,  like  Nabal  when  he  heard 
what  had  taken  place. 

Some  of  the  Andalusian  authors  say  that  his  breath  was  suspended,  so  that 
no  breathing  could  be  perceived  at  all,  as  sometimes  an  invalid  is  seized  with 
a  fainting  fit  or  an  attack  of  asphyxia,  and  it  cannot  be  discovered  whether  he 
is  alive  or  dead  ;  in  this  condition  the  patient  may  remain  a  day  or  two. 

The  term  hai  has  also  been  employed  in  reference  to  the  acquisition  of 
wisdom.  Comp.  "  So  shall  they  be  life  {hayyim)  unto  thy  soul "  (Prov.  iii. 
22)  ;  "  For  whoso  findeth  me  findeth  life  "  {ib.  viii.  35)  ;  "  For  they  arc  life 
(Jpayyim)  to  those  that  find  them  "  {ib.  iv.  22).  Such  instances  are  numerous. 
In  accordance  with  this  metaphor,  true  principles  are  called  life,  and  corrupt 
principles  death.  Thus  the  Almighty  says,  "  See,  I  have  set  before  thee  this 
day  life  and  good  and  death  and  evil  "  (Deut.  xxx.  15),  showing  that  "  life  " 
and  "  good,"""  death  "  and  "  evil,"  are  identical,  and  then  He  explains  these 
terms.  In  the  same  way  I  understand  His  words,  "  That  ye  may  live  "  {ib. 
V.  33),  in  accordance  with  the  traditional  interpretation  of  "  That  it  may  be 
well  with  thee  "  {scil.  in  the  life  to  come]  {ib.  xxii.  7).  In  consequence  of  the 
frequent  use  of  this  figure  in  our  language  our  Sages  said,  "  The  righteous 
even  in  death  are  called  living,  while  the  wicked  even  in  life  are  called  dead." 
{Talm.  B.  Berakhoth,  p.  78).     Note  this  well. 

CHAPTER  XLIII 

The  Hebrew  hanaf  is  a  homonym  ;  most  of  its  meanings  are  metaphorical. 
Its  primary  signification  is  "  wing  of  a  flying  creature,"  e.g.,  "^Any  winged 
{kanaf)  fowl  that  flieth  in  the  air  "  (Deut.  iv.  17). 

The  term  was  next  applied  figuratively  to  the  wings  or  corners  of  garments  ; 
comp.  "  upon  the  four  corners  {kanfoth)  of  thy  vesture  "  {ib.  xxii.  12). 

It  was  also  used  to  denote  the  ends  of  the  inhabited  part  of  the 
earth,  and  the  corners  that  are  most  distant  from  our  habitation.  Comp. 
"  That  it  might  take  hold  of  the  ends  {kanfoth)  of  the  earth  "  (Job  xxxviii. 
13)  ;  "  From  the  utttermost  part  {kenaf)  of  the  earth  have  we  heard  songs  " 
(Isa.  xxiv.  16). 

Ibn  Ganah  (in  his  Book  of  Hebrew  Roots)  says  that  kenaf  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  "  concealing,"  in  analogy  with  the  Arabic  kanaf tu  ahhaian, "  I  have  hidden 
something,"  and  accordingly  explains,  Isaiah  xxx.  20,  "  And  thy  teacher  will 
no  longer  be  hidden  or  concealed."       It  is  a  good  explanation,  and  I  think 
that  kenaf  has  the  same  meaning  in  Deuteronomy  xxiii.  I,  "He  shall  not 
take  away  the  cover  {kenaf)  of  his  father  "  ;  also  in,  "  Spread,  therefore,  thy 
cover  {kenaf eka)  over  thine  handmaid"  (Ruth  iii.  9).       In  this  sense,  I  think, 
the  word  is  figuratively  applied  to  God  and  to  angels  (for  angels  are  not  cor- 
poreal, according  to  my  opinion,  as  I  shall  explain).    Ruth  ii.  1 2  must  therefore 
be  translated  "  Under  whose  protection  {kenaf av)  thou  art  come  to  trust  "  ; 
and  wherever  the  word  occurs  in  reference  to  angels,  it  means  concealment. 
You  have  surely  noticed  the  words  of  Isaiah  (Isa.  vi.  2),  "With  twain  he  covered 
his  face,  and  with  twain  he  covered  his  feet."     Their  meaning  is  this  :  The 
cause  of  his  (the  angel's)  existence  is  hidden  and  concealed;  this  is  meant  by  the 


58  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

covering  of  the  face.  The  things  of  which  he  (the  angel)  is  the  cause,  and 
which  are  called  "  his  feet  "  (as  I  stated  in  speaking  of  the  homonym  regel), 
arc  likewise  concealed  ;  for  the  actions  of  the  intelligences  are  not  seen,  and 
their  wavs  arc,  except  after  long  study,  not  understood,  on  account  of  two 
rcaions — the  one  of  which  is  contained  in  their  own  properties,  the  other 
in  ourselves  ;  that  is  to  say,  because  our  perception  is  imperfect  and  the 
ideals  arc  difficult  to  be  fully  comprehended.  As  regards  the  phrase  "  and 
with  twain  he  tlieth,"  I  shall  explain  in  a  special  chapter  (xlix.)  why  flight 
has  been  attributed  to  angels. 

CHAPTER   XLIV 

The  Hebrew  -aytn  is  a  homonym,  signifying  "  fountain  "  ;  e.g.,  "  By  a  foun- 
tain (vn)  of  water  "  (Gen.  ivi.  7).  It  next  denotes  "  eye  "  ;  comp.  {'avin) 
"  Eye  for  eye  "  (Exod.  xxi.  24).  Another  meaning  of  the  word  is  "  provi- 
dence," as  it  is  said  concerning  Jeremiah,  "  Take  him  and  direct  thine  atten- 
tion {fneka)  to  him  "  (Jer.  xxxix.  12).  In  this  figurative  sense  it  is  to  be 
understood  when  used  in  reference  to  God  ;  e.g.,  "  And  my  providence  and 
ray  pleasure  shall  be  there  perpetually  "  (l  Kings  ix.  3),  as  we  have  already 
explained  (page  140) ;  "  The  eyes  {'ene),  i.e.,  the  Providence  of  the  Lord  thy 
God,  are  always  upon  it "  (Deut.  xi.  12)  ;  "  They  are  the  eyes  {^ene)  of  the 
Lord,  which  run  to  and  fro  through  the  whole  earth  "  (Zech.  iv.  10),  i.e., 
His  providence  is  extended  over  everything  that  is  on  earth,  as  wiU  be  ex- 
plained in  the  chapters  in  which  we  shall  treat  of  Providence.  When,  how- 
ever, the  word  "  eye  "  is  connected  with  the  verb  "  to  see,"  {raah  or  hazah)  as 
in  "  Open  thine  eyes,  and  see  "  (i  Kings  xix.  16)  ;  "  His  eyes  behold  "  (Ps. 
xi.  4),  the  phrase  denotes  perception  of  the  mind,  not  that  of  the  senses ;  for 
every  sensation  is  a  passive  state,  as  is  well  known  to  you,  and  God  is  active, 
never  passive,  as  will  be  explained  by  me. 

CHAPTER   XLV 

Shama-  is  used  homonymously.  It  signifies  "  to  hear,"  and  also  "  to  obey." 
.\s  regards  the  first  signification,  comp.  "  Neither  let  it  be  heard  out  of  thy 
mouth  "  (Exod.  xxiii.  13)  ;  "  And  the  fame  thereof  was  heard  in  Pharaoh's 
house  "  (Gen.  ilv.  16).     Instances  of  this  kind  are  numerous. 

Equally  frequent  are  the  instances  of  this  verb  being  used  in  the  sense  of 
"  to  obey  "  :  "  And  they  hearkened  (shame'li)  not  unto  Moses  "  (Exod.  vi.  9). 
"  If  they  obey  (yishme^U)  and  serve  him  (Job  xxxvi.  11)  ;  "  Shall  we  then 
hearken  (nishma')  unto  you  "  (Neh.  xiii.  27)  ;  "  Whosoever  will  not  hearken 
(yishma')  unto  thy  words  "  (Josh.  i.  18). 

The  verb  also  signifies  "  to  know  "  ("  to  understand  "),  comp.  "  A  nation 
whose  tongue,  i.e.,  its  language,  thou  shalt  not  understand  "  (tishma')  (Deut. 
xxviii.  49).  The  verb  shama',  used  in  reference  to  God,  must  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  perceiving,  which  is  part  of  the  third  signification,  whenever, 
according  to  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  passage,  it  appears  to  have  the 
fint  meaning  :  comp.  "  And  the  Lord  heard  it  "  (Num.  xi.  i)  ;  "  For  that 
He  hcarcth  your  murmurings"  (Exod.  xvi.  7).  In  all  such  passages  mental 
perception  is  meant.     Wlicn,  however,  according  to  the  literal  interpretation 


ON    ANTHROPOMORPHISMS    IN    THE    BIBLE       59 

the  verb  appears  to  have  the  second  signification,  it  implies  that  God  re- 
sponded to  the  prayer  of  man  and  fulfilled  his  wish,  or  did  not  respond  and 
did  not  fulfil  his  wish  :  "  I  will  surely  hear  his  cry  "  (Exod.  xxii.  23)  ;  "  I 
will  hear,  for  I  am  gracious  "  (ib.  27)  ;  "  Bow  down  thine  ear,  and  hear  " 
(2  Kings  xix.  16)  ;  "  But  the  Lord  would  not  hearken  to  your  voice,  nor  give 
ear  unto  you  "  (Deut.  i.  45)  ;  "  Yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I  will  not 
hear  "  (Isa.  i.  15)  ;  "  For  I  will  not  hear  thee  "  (Jer.  vii.  16).  There  are 
many  instances  in  which  shama^  has  this  sense. 

Remarks  wiU  now  be  presented  to  you  on  these  metaphors  and  similes, 
which  will  quench  your  thirst,  and  explain  to  you  all  their  meanings  without 
leaving  a  doubt. 

CHAPTER  XLVI 

We  have  already  stated,  in  one  of  the  chapters  of  this  treatise,  that  there  is  a 
great  difference  between  bringing  to  view  the  existence  of  a  thing  and  de- 
monstrating its  true  essence.     We  can  lead  others  to  notice  the  existence  of 
an  object  by  pointing  to  its  accidents,  actions,  or  even  most  remote  relations 
to  other  objects :  e.g.,  if  you  wish  to  describe  the  king  of  a  country  to  one  of 
his  subjects  who  does  not  know  him,  you  can  give  a  description  and  an  account 
of  his  existence  in  many  ways.     You  will  either  say  to  him,  the  tall  man  with 
a  fair  complexion  and  grey  hair  is  the  king,  thus  describing  him  by  his  acci- 
dents ;   or  you  will  say,  the  king  is  the  person  round  whom  are  seen  a  great 
multitude  of  men  on  horse  and  on  foot,  and  soldiers  with  drawn  swords,  over 
whose  head  banners  are  waving,  and  before  whom  trumpets  are  sounded  ;  or 
it  is  the  person  living  in  the  palace  in  a  particular  region  of  a  certain  country  ; 
or  it  is  the  person  who  ordered  the  building  of  that  wall,  or  the  construction 
of  that  bridge ;    or  by  some  other  similar  acts  and  things  relating  to  him. 
His  existence  can  be  demonstrated  in  a  still  more  indirect  way,  e.g.,  if  you 
are  asked  whether  this  land  has  a  king,  you  will  undoubtedly  answer  in 
the    affirmative.      "  What   proof    have    you  ?  "      "  The   fact    that    this 
banker  here,  a  weak  and   little   person,  stands   before   this    large  mass  of 
gold    pieces,    and    that   poor   man,    tall   and   strong,    who    stands    before 
him  asking  in  vain  for  alms  of  the  weight  of   a  carob-grain,  is  rebuked 
and  is  compelled  to  go  away  by  the  mere  force  of  words ;   for  had  he  not 
feared  the  king,  he  would,  without  hesitation,  have  killed  the  banker,  or 
pushed  him  away  and  taken  as  much  of  the  money  as  he  could."     Conse- 
quently, this  is  a  proof  that  this  country  has  a  ruler  and  his  existence   is 
proved  by  the  well-regulated  affairs  of  the  country,  on  account  of  which  the 
king  is  respected  and  the  punishments  decreed  by  him  are  feared.     In  this 
whole  example  nothing  is  mentioned  that  indicated  his  characteristics,  and 
his  essential  properties,  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  king.     The  same  is  the  case 
with  the  information  concerning  the  Creator  given  to  the  ordinary  classes 
of  men  in  all  prophetical  books  and  in  the  Law.     For  it  was  found  necessary 
to  teach  all  of  them  that  God  exists,  and  that  He  is  in  every  respect  the  most 
perfect  Being,  that  is  to  say.  He  exists  not  only  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
earth  and  the  heavens  exist,  but  He  exists  and  possesses  life,  wdsdom,  power, 
activity,  and  all  other  properties  which  our  belief  in  His  existence  must  in- 
clude, as  will  be  shown  below.     That  God  exists  was  therefore  shown  to  ordi- 


6o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

naiy  men  by  means  of  similes  taken  from  physical  bodies ;  that  He  is  living, 
by  a  simile  taken  from  motion,  because  ordinary  men  consider  only  the  body 
as  fully,  truly,  and  undoubtedly  existing  ;  that  which  is  connected  with  a 
body  but  is  itself  not  a  body,  although  believed  to  exist,  has  a  lower  degree  of 
existence  on  account  of  its  dependence  on  the  body  for  existence.  That, 
however,  which  b  neither  itself  a  body,  nor  a  force  within  a  body,  is  not 
existent  according  to  man's  first  notions,  and  is  above  all  excluded  from  the 
range  of  imagination.  In  the  same  manner  motion  is  considered  by  the 
ordinary  man  as  identical  with  life ;  what  cannot  move  voluntarily  from 
place  to  place  has  no  life,  although  motion  is  not  part  of  the  definition  of  life, 
but  an  accident  connected  with  it.  The  perception  by  the  senses,  especially 
by  hearing  and  seeing,  is  best  known  to  us ;  wc  have  no  idea  or  notion  of  any 
other  mode  of  communication  between  the  soul  of  one  person  and  that  of 
another  than  by  means  of  speaking,  i.e.,  by  the  sound  produced  by  lips, 
tongue,  and  the  other  organs  of  speech.  When,  therefore,  we  are  to  be  in- 
formed that  God  has  a  knowledge  of  things,  and  that  communication  is  made 
by  Him  to  the  Prophets  who  convey  it  to  us,  they  represent  Him  to  us  as 
seeing  and  hearing,  i.e.,  as  perceiving  and  knowing  those  things  which  can  be 
seen  and  heard.  They  represent  Him  to  us  as  speaking,  i.e.,  that  communi- 
cations from  Him  reach  the  Prophets ;  that  is  to  be  understood  by  the  term 
"  prophecy,"  as  will  be  fully  explained.  God  is  described  as  working,  be- 
cause wc  do  not  know  any  other  mode  of  producing  a  thing  except  by  direct 
touch.  He  is  said  to  have  a  soul  in  the  sense  that  He  is  living,  because  all 
living  beings  are  generally  supposed  to  have  a  soul ;  although  the  term  soul 
is,  as  has  been  shown,  a  homonym. 

Again,  since  we  perform  all  these  actions  only  by  means  of  corporeal  organs, 
we  figuratively  ascribe  to  God  the  organs  of  locomotion,  as  feet,  and  their 
soles  ;  organs  of  hearing,  seeing,  and  smelling,  as  ear,  eye,  and  nose  ;  organs 
and  substance  of  speech,  as  mouth,  tongue,  and  sound  ;  organs  for  the  per- 
formance of  work,  as  hand,  its  fingers,  its  palm,  and  the  arm.  In  short,  these 
organs  of  the  body  are  figuratively  ascribed  to  God,  who  is  above  all  imper- 
fection, to  express  that  He  performs  certain  acts ;  and  these  acts  are  figura- 
tively ascribed  to  Him  to  express  that  He  possesses  certain  perfections 
different  from  those  acts  themselves.  E.g.,  we  say  that  He  has  eyes,  ears, 
hands,  a  mouth,  a  tongue,  to  express  that  He  sees,  hears,  acts,  and  speaks ; 
but  seeing  and  hearing  are  attributed  to  Him  to  indicate  simply  that  He  per- 
ceives. You  thus  find  in  Hebrew  instances  in  which  the  perception  of  the 
one  sense  is  named  instead  of  the  other  ;  thus,  "  See  the  word  of  the  Lord  " 
(Jcr.  ii.  31),  in  the  same  meaning  as  "  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  for  the 
sense  of  the  phrase  is,  "  Perceive  what  He  says  "  ;  similarly  the  phrase,  "  See 
the  smell  of  my  son  "  (Gen.  xxvii.  27)  has  the  same  meaning  as  "  Smell  the 
smell  of  my  son,"  for  it  relates  to  the  perception  of  the  smell.  In  the  same 
way  arc  used  the  words,  "  And  all  the  people  saw  the  thunders  and  the  light- 
nmgs  "  (Exod.  xi.  15),  although  the  passage  also  contains  the  description  of 
a  prophetical  vision,  as  is  well  known  and  understood  among  our 
people.  Action  and  speech  are  likewise  figuratively  applied  to  God,  to 
express  that  a  certain  influence  has  emanated  from  Him,  as  will  be  explained 
(chap.  Ixv  and  chap.  Ixvi.).  The  physical  organs  which  are  attributed  to 
God  m  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  are  cither  organs  of  locomotion,  indi- 


•  ON    ANTHROPOMORPHISMS    IN    THE    BIBLE       6i 

eating  life  ;  organs  of  sensation,  indicating  perception  ;  organs  of  touch, 
indicating  action  ;  or  organs  of  speech,  indicating  the  divine  inspiration  of 
the  Prophets,  as  will  be  explained. 

The  object  of  all  these  indications  is  to  establish  in  our  minds  the  notion 
of  the  existence  of  a  living  being,  the  Maker  of  everything,  who  also  possesses 
a  knowledge  of  the  things  which  He  has  made.  We  shall  explain,  when  we 
come  to  speak  of  the  inadmissibility  of  Divine  attributes,  that  all  these  vari- 
ous attributes  convey  but  one  notion,  viz.,  that  of  the  essence  of  God.  The 
sole  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  explain  in  what  sense  physical  organs  are 
ascribed  to  the  Most  Perfect  Being,  namely,  that  they  are  mere  indications 
of  the  actions  generally  performed  by  means  of  these  organs.  Such  actions 
being  perfections  respecting  ourselves,  are  predicated  of  God,  because  we 
wish  to  express  that  He  is  most  perfect  in  every  respect,  as  we  remarked 
above  in  explaining  the  Rabbinical  phrase,  "  The  language  of  the  Torah  is 
like  the  language  of  man."  Instances  of  organs  of  locomotion  being  applied 
to  the  Creator  occur  as  follows  : — "  My  footstool  "  (Isa.  Ixvi.  l)  ;  "  the  place 
of  the  soles  of  my  feet "  (Ezek.  xliii.  7).  For  examples  of  organs  of  touch 
applied  to  God,  comp.  "  the  hand  of  the  Lord  "  (Exod.  ix.  3)  ;  "  with  the 
finger  of  God"  (ib.  xxxi,  18);  "the  work  of  thy  fingers"  (Ps.  viii.  4), 
"  And  thou  hast  laid  thine  hand  upon  me  "  (ib.  cxxxix.  5)  ;  "  The  arm  of 
the  Lord  "  (Isa.  liii.  i) ;  "  Thy  right  hand,  O  Lord  "  (Exod.  xv.  6).  In 
instances  like  the  following,  organs  of  speech  are  attributed  to  God  :  "  The 
mouth  of  the  Lord  has  spoken  "  (Isa.  i.  20)  ;  "  And  He  would  open  His  lips 
against  thee  "  (Job  xi.  5)  ;  "  The  voice  of  the  Lord  is  powerful  "  (Ps.  xxix. 
4);  "  And  his  tongue  as  a  devouring  fire  "  (Isa.  XXX.  27).  Organs  of  sensa- 
tion are  attributed  to  God  in  instances  like  the  following  :  "  His  eyes  be- 
hold, His  eyelids  try  "  (Ps.  xi.  4)  ;  "  The  eyes  of  the  Lord  which  run  to  and 
fro  "  (Zech.  iv.  10)  ;  "  Bow  down  thine  ear  unto  me,  and  hear  "  (2  Kings 
lix.  16)  ;  "  You  have  kindled  a  fire  in  my  nostril  "  (Jer.  xvii.  5).  Of  the 
inner  parts  of  the  human  body  only  the  heart  is  figuratively  applied  to  God, 
because  "  heart  "  is  a  homonym,  and  denotes  also  "  intellect  "  ;  it  is  besides 
the  source  of  animal  life.  In  phrases  like  "  my  bowels  are  troubled  for  him  " 
(Jer.  xxxi.  20);  "The  sounding  of  thy  bowels"  (Isa.  Ixiii.  15),  the  term 
"  bowels  "  is  used  in  the  sense  of  "  heart  "  ;  for  the  term  "  bowels  "  is  used 
both  in  a  general  and  in  a  specific  meaning  ;  it  denotes  specifically  "  bowels," 
but  more  generally  it  can  be  used  as  the  name  of  any  inner  organ,  including 
"  heart."  The  correctness  of  this  argument  can  be  proved  by  the  phrase 
"  And  thy  law  is  within  my  bowels  "  (Ps.  xl.  9),  which  is  identical  with 
"  And  thy  law  is  within  my  heart."  For  that  reason  the  prophet  employed 
in  this  verse  the  phrase  "  my  bowels  are  troubled  "  (and  "  the  sounding  of  thy 
bowels ") ;  the  verb  hamah  is  in  fact  used  more  frequently  in  connection  with 
"  heart,"  than  with  any  other  organ  ;  comp.  "  My  heart  maketh  a  noise 
(homeh)  in  me  "  (Jer.  iv.  19).  Similarly,  the  shoulder  is  never  used  as  a  figure 
in  reference  to  God,  because  it  is  known  as  a  mere  instrument  of  transport, 
and  also  comes  into  close  contact  with  the  thing  which  it  carries.  With  far 
greater  reason  the  organs  of  nutrition  are  never  attributed  to  God  ;  they  are 
at  once  recognized  as  signs  of  imperfection.  In  fact  all  organs,  both  the 
external  and  the  internal,  are  employed  in  the  various  actions  of  the  soul ; 
some,  as  e.g.,  all  inner  organs,  are  the  means  of  preserving  the  individual  for 


62  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

a  certain  time ;    others,  as  the  organs  of  generation,  are  the  means  of  pre- 
serving the  species ;  others  are  the  means  of  improving  the  condition  of  man 
and  bringing  his  actions  to  perfection,  as  the  hands,  the  feet,  and  the  eyes, 
aU  of  which  tend  to  render  motion,  action,  and  perception  more  perfect. 
Animate  beings  require  motion  in  order  to  be  able  to  approach  that  which 
is  conducive  to  their  welfare,  and  to  move  away  from  the  opposite ;    they 
require  the  senses  in  order  to  be  able  to  discern  what  is  injurious  to  them 
and  what  is  beneficial.     In  addition,  man  requires  various  kinds  of  handi- 
work, to  prepare  his  food,  clothing,  and  dwelling ;   and  he  is  compeUed  by 
his  physical  constitution  to  perform  such  work,  namely,  to  prepare  what  is 
good  for  him.     Some  kinds  of  work  also  occur  among  certain  animals,  as  far 
as  such  work  is  required  by  those  animals.     I  do  not  believe  that  any  man 
can  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  assertion  that  the  Creator  is  not  in  need  of 
anything  for  the  continuance  of  His  existence,  or  for  the  improvement  of 
His  condition.     Therefore,  God  has  no  organs,  or,  what  is  the  same,  He  is 
not  corporeal ;    His  actions  are  accomplished  by  His  Essence,  not  by  any 
organ,  and  as  undoubtedly  physical  forces  are  connected  with  the  organs, 
He  does  not  possess  any  such  forces,  that  is  to  say.  He  has,  besides  His  Essence, 
nothing  that  could  be  the  cause  of   His  action.  His  knowledge,  or  His  will, 
for  attributes  are  nothing  but  forces  under  a  different  name.     It  is  not  my 
intention  to  discuss  the  question  in  this  chapter.     Our  Sages  laid  down  a 
general  principle,  by  which  the  literal  sense  of  the  physical  attributes  of  God 
mentioned  by  the  prophets  is  rejected  ;  a  principle  which  evidently  shows 
that  our  Sages  were  far  from  the  belief  in  the  corporeality  of  God,  and  that 
they  did  not  think  any  person  capable  of  misunderstanding  it,  or  entertaining 
any  doubt  about  it.     For  that  reason  they  employ  in  the  Talmud  and  the 
Midrashim  phrases  similar  to  those  contained  in  the  prophecies,  without  any 
circumlocution  ;   they  knew  that  there  could  not  be  any  doubt  about  their 
metaphorical  character,  or  any  danger  whatever  of  their  being  misunder- 
stood ;    and  that  all  such  expressions  would  be  understood  as  figurative 
[language],  employed  to  communicate  to  the  intellect  the  notion  of  His 
existence.     Now,  it  was  well  known  that  in  figurative  language  God  is  com- 
pared to  a  king  who  commands,  cautions,  punishes,  and  rewards,  his  subjects, 
and  whose  servants  and  attendants  publish  his  orders,  so  that  they  might  be 
acted  upon,  and  they  also  execute  whatever  he  wishes.     Thus  the  Sages 
adopted  that  figure,  used  it  frequently,  and  introduced  such  speech,  consent, 
and  refusal  of  a  king,  and  other  usual  acts  of  kings,  as  became  necessary  b; 
that  figure.     In  all  these  instances  they  were  sure  that  no  doubt  or  con- 
fusion would  arise  from  it.     The  general  principle  alluded  to  above  is  con- 
tained in  the  following  saying  of   our  Sages,  mentioned  in  Bereshith  Rabba 
(c.  xxvii.),  "  Great  was  the  power  of   the   Prophets  ;    they   compared    the 
creature  to  its  Creator  ;   comp.  '  And  over  the   resemblance  of  the   throne 
was  a  resemblance  like  the  appearance  of  man  '  "  (Ezek.  i.  26).     They  have 
thus  plainly  suted  that  all  those  images  which  the  Prophets  perceived,  i.e. 
in  prophetic  visions,  are  images  created  by  God.     This  is  perfectly  correct ; 
for  every  image  in  our  imagination  has  been  created.     How  pregnant  is  the 
expression,  "  Great  is  their  boldness !  "     They  indicated  by  it,  that  they 
themselves  found  it  very  remarkable  ;   for  whenever  they  perceived  a  word 
or  act  difficult  to  explain,  or  apparently    objectionable,  they    used    that 


SENSATION    ATTRIBUTED    TO    GOD  63 

phrase  ;  e.g.,  a  certain  Rabbi  has  performed  the  act  (of  "  hali  ah  ")  with 
a  slipper,  alone  and  by  night.  Another  Rabbi,  thereupon  exclaimed  "  How 
great  is  his  boldness  to  have  followed  the  opinion  of  the  minority."  The 
Chaldee  phrase  rab  gubreh  in  the  original  of  the  latter  quotation,  and  the 
Hebrew  gadol  koho  in  that  of  the  former  quotation,  have  the  same  meaning, 
viz.,  Great  is  the  power  of  (or  the  boldness  of).  Hence,  in  the  preceding 
quotation,  the  sense  is.  How  remarkable  is  the  language  which  the  Prophets 
were  obliged  to  use  when  they  speak  of  God  the  Creator  in  terms  signifying 
properties  of  beings  created  by  Him.  This  deserves  attention.  Our  Sages 
have  thus  stated  in  distinct  and  plain  terms  that  they  are  far  from  believing 
in  the  corporeality  of  God  ;  and  in  the  figures  and  forms  seen  in  a  propheti- 
cal vision,  though  belonging  to  created  beings,  the  Prophets,  to  use  the  words 
of  our  Sages,  "  compared  the  creature  to  its  Creator."  If,  however,  after 
these  explanations,  any  one  wishes  out  of  malice  to  cavil  at  them,  and  to  find 
fault  with  them,  though  their  method  is  neither  comprehended  nor  under- 
stood by  him,  the  Sages  o.b.m.  will  sustain  no  injury  by  it. 

CHAPTER  XLVII 

We  have  already  stated  several  times  that  the  prophetic  books  never  attri- 
bute to  God  anything  which  ordinary  men  consider  a  defect,  or  which  they 
cannot  in  their  imagination  combine  with  the  idea  of  the  Almighty,  although 
such  terms  may  not  otherwise  be  different  from  those  which  were  employed 
as  metaphors  in  relation  to  God.  Indeed  all  things  which  are  attributed  to 
God  are  considered  in  some  way  to  be  perfection,  or  can  at  least  be  imagined 
[as  appertaining  to  Him]. 

We  must  now  show  why,  according  to  this  principle,  the  senses  of  hearing, 
sight  and  smell,  are  attributed  to  God,  but  not  those  of  taste  and  touch. 
He  is  equally  elevated  above  the  use  of  all  the  five  senses ;  they  are  all  de- 
fective as  regards  perception,  even  for  those  who  have  no  other  source  of 
knowledge  ;  because  they  are  passive,  receive  impressions  from  without,  and 
are  subject  to  interruptions  and  sufferings,  as  much  as  the  other  organs  of 
the  body.  By  saying  that  God  sees,  we  mean  to  state  that  He  perceives 
visible  things ;  "  He  hears  "  is  identical  with  saying  "  He  perceives  audible 
things  "  ;  in  the  same  way  we  might  say,  "  He  tastes  and  He  touches,"  in 
the  sense  of  "  He  perceives  objects  which  man  perceives  by  means  of  taste 
and  touch."  For,  as  regards  perception,  the  senses  are  identical ;  if  we  deny 
the  existence  of  one  sensation  in  God,  we  must  deny  that  of  all  other  sensa- 
tions, i.e.,  the  perceptions  of  the  five  senses ;  and  if  we  attribute  the  exist- 
ence of  one  sensation  to  Him,  i.e.,  the  perception  appertaining  to  one  of  the 
senses,  we  must  attribute  all  the  live  sensations.  Nevertheless,  we  find  in 
Holy  Writ,  "  And  God  saw  "  (Gen.  vi.  5)  ;  "  And  God  heard  "  (Num.  xi. 
l)  ;  "  And  God  smelt  "  (Gen.  viii.  21)  ;  but  we  do  not  meet  with  the  ex- 
pressions, "  And  God  tasted,"  "  And  God  touched."  According  to  our  opinion 
the  reason  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  idea,  which  has  a  firm  hold  in  the 
minds  of  all  men,  that  God  does  not  come  into  contact  with  a  body  in  the  same 
manner  as  one  body  comes  into  contact  with  another,  since  He  is  not  even  seen 
by  the  eye.  While  these  two  senses,  namely,  taste  and  touch,  only  act  when 
in  close  contact  with  the  object,  by  sight,  hearing,    and   smell,  even   distant 

D 


64  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

objects  are  perceived.  These,  therefore,  were  considered  by  the  multitude 
appropriate  expressions  [to  be  figuratively  applied  to  God].  Besides,  the 
object  in  figuratively  applying  the  sensations  to  Him,  could  only  have 
been  to  express  that  He  perceives  our  actions ;  but  hearing  and  sight  are 
sufficient  for  that,  namely,  for  the  perception  of  what  a  man  does  or  says. 
Thus  our  Sages,  among  other  admonitions,  gave  the  following  advice  and 
warning  :  "  Know  what  is  above  thee,  a  seeing  eye,  and  a  hearing  ear." 
(Mishnah  Abot,  ii.  I.) 

You,  however,  know  that,  strictly  speaking,  the  condition  of  all  the  sen- 
sations is  the  same,  that  the  same  argument  which  is  employed  against  the 
existence  of  touch  and  taste  in  God,  may  be  used  against  sight,  hearing,  and 
smell ;  for  they  all  are  material  perceptions  and  impressions  which  are 
subject  to  change.  There  is  only  this  difference,  that  the  former,  touch  and 
taste,  are  at  once  recognized  as  deficiencies,  while  the  others  are  considered 
as  perfections.  In  a  similar  manner  the  defect  of  the  imagination  is  easily 
seen,  less  easily  that  of  thinking  and  reasoning.  Imagination  {ra'ayon) 
therefore,  was  never  employed  as  a  figure  in  speaking  of  God,  while  thought 
and  reason  are  figuratively  ascribed  to  Him.  Comp.  "  The  thoughts  which 
the  Lord  thought "  (Jer.  xlix.  20) ;  "  And  with  his  understanding  he 
stretched  out  the  heavens"  {ib.  x.  12).  The  inner  senses  were  thus 
treated  in  the  same  way  as  the  external ;  some  are  figuratively  applied  to 
God,  some  not.  All  this  is  according  to  the  language  of  man  ;  he  ascribes  to 
God  what  he  considers  a  perfection,  and  does  not  ascribe  to  Him  what  he 
considers  a  defect.  In  truth,  however,  no  real  attribute,  implying  an  addi- 
tion to  His  essence,  can  be  applied  to  Him,  as  will  be  proved. 

CHAPTER  XLVIII 

Whenever  in  the  Pentateuch  the  term  "  to  hear  "  is  applied  to  God,  Onke- 
los,  the  Proselyte,  does  not  translate  it  literally,  but  paraphrases  it,  merely 
expressing  that  a  certain  speech  reached  Him,  i.e.,  He  perceived  it,  or  that 
He  accepted  it  or  did  not  accept,  when  it  refers  to  supplication  and  prayer 
as  its  object.  The  words  "  God  heard  "  are  therefore  paraphrased  by  him 
regularly  either,  "  It  was  heard  before  the  Lord,"  or  "  He  accepted  "  when 
employed  in  reference  to  supplication  and  prayer  ;  [e.g.]  "  I  will  surely 
accept,"  lit.  "  I  will  surely  hear  "  (Exod.  xxii.  22).  This  principle  is  followed 
by  Onkelos  in  his  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  without  any  exception.  But 
as  regards  the  verb  "  to  see,"  (raah),  his  renderings  vary  in  a  remarkable 
manner,  and  I  was  unable  to  discern  his  principle  or  method.  In  some 
instances  he  translates  literally,  "  and  God  saw  "  ;  in  others  he  paraphrases 
"  it  was  revealed  before  the  Lord."  The  use  of  the  phrase  va-haza  adonai 
by  Onkelos  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  term  haza  in  Chaldee  is  homony- 
mous, and  that  it  denotes  mental  perception  as  well  as  the  sensation  of  sight. 
This  being  the  case,  I  am  surprised  that,  in  some  instances  avoiding  the 
literal  rendering,  he  substituted  for  it  "  And  it  was  revealed  before  the 
Ixjrd."  When  I,  however,  examined  the  various  readings  in  the  version  of 
Onkelos,  which  I  either  saw  myself  or  heard  from  others  during  the  time  of 
my  studies,  I  found  that  the  term  "  to  sec  "  when  connected  with  wrong, 
injury,  or  violence,  was  pamphrased,  "It  was  manifest  before  the  Lord." 


SENSATION    ATTRIBUTED    TO    GOD  65 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  term  haza  in  Chaldee  denotes  complete  appre- 
hension and  reception  of  the  object  in  the  state  in  which  it  has  been  per- 
ceived. When  Onkclos,  therefore,  found  the  verb  "  to  see "  connected 
with  the  object  "  wrong,"  he  did  not  render  it  literally,  but  paraphrased  it, 
"  It  was  revealed  before  the  Lord."  Now,  I  noticed  that  in  all  instances  of 
the  Pentateuch  where  seeing  is  ascribed  to  God,  he  translated  it  literally, 
except  those  instances  which  I  will  mention  to  you  :  "  For  my  affliction  was 
revealed  before  the  Lord  "  (Gen.  xxix.  32)  ;  "  For  all  that  Laban  doeth 
unto  thee  is  revealed  before  me  "  (ib.  xxxi.  12)  ; — although  the  first  person 
in  the  sentence  refers  to  the  angel  [and  not  to  God],  Onkelos  does  not  ascribe 
to  him  that  perception  which  implies  complete  comprehension  of  the  object, 
because  the  object  is  "  iniquity  " — "  The  oppression  of  the  children  of 
Israel  was  known  to  the  Lord  "  (Exod.  ii.  25)  ;  "  The  oppression  of  my 
people  was  surely  known  to  me  "  {ib.  iii.  7)  ;  "  The  affliction  is  known  to 
me"  (ib.  9);  "Their  oppression  is  known  to  me"  (ib.  iv.  31);  "This 
people  is  known  to  me  "  (ib.  xxxii.  9),  i.e.,  their  rebellion  is  known  to  me — 
comp.  the  Targum  of  the  passage,  "  And  God  saw  the  children  of  Israel  " 
(ih.  ii.  25),  which  is  equal  to  "  He  saw  their  affliction  and  their  trouble  " — 
"  And  it  was  known  to  the  Lord,  and  he  abhorred  them  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  19)  ; 
"  It  was  known  to  him  that  their  power  was  gone  "  (ib.  36)  ;  in  this  instance 
the  object  of  the  perception  is  likewise  the  wrong  done  to  the  Israelites,  and 
the  increasing  power  of  the  enemy.  In  all  these  examples  Onkelos  is  con- 
sistent, following  the  maxim  expressed  in  the  words,  "  Thou  canst  not  look 
on  iniquity"  (Hab.  i.  13)  ;  wherefore  he  renders  the  verb  "  to  see,"  when 
referring  to  oppression  or  rebellion.  It  is  revealed  before  him,  etc.  This 
appropriate  and  satisfactory  explanation,  the  correctness  of  which  I  do  not 
doubt,  is  weakened  by  three  passages,  in  which,  according  to  this  view,  I 
expected  to  find  the  verb  "  to  see  "  paraphrased  "  to  be  revealed  before 
him,"  but  found  instead  the  literal  rendering  "  to  see  "  in  the  various  copies 
of  the  Targum.  The  following  are  the  three  passages :  "  And  God  saw  that 
the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  upon  the  earth  "  (Gen.  vi.  6)  ;  "  And  the 
Lord  saw  the  earth,  and  behold  it  was  corrupt"  (ib.  vi.  12)  ;  "  and  God 
saw  that  Leah  was  hated"  (ib.  xxx.  31).  It  appears  to  me  that  in  these 
passages  there  is  a  mistake,  which  has  crept  into  the  copies  of  the  Targum, 
since  we  do  not  possess  the  Targum  in  the  original  manuscript  of  Onkelos, 
for  in  that  case  we  should  have  assumed  that  he  had  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  it. 

In  ren4.kring  Genesis  xxii.  8,  "  the  lamb  is  known  to  the  Lord,"  he  either 
wished  to  indicate  that  the  Lord  was  not  expected  to  seek  and  to  bring  it, 
or  he  considered  it  inappropriate,  in  Chaldee  to  connect  the  divine  percep- 
tion with  one  of  the  lower  animals. 

However,  the  various  copies  of  the  Targum  must  be  carefully  examined 
with  regard  to  this  point,  and  if  you  still  find  those  passages  the  same  as  I 
quoted  them,  I  cannot  explain  what  he  meant. 

CHAPTER   XLIX 

The  angels  are  likewise  incorporeal ;    they  are  intelligences  without  matter, 
but  they  are  nevertheless  created  beings,  and  God  created  them,  as  will  be 


66  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

explained  below.  In  Bereshith  Rabbah  (on  Gen.  iii.  24)  we  read  the  follow- 
ing remark  of  our  Sages  :  "  The  angel  is  called  '  the  flame  of  the  sword  which 
turned  every  way  '  (Gen.  iii.  24),  in  accordance  with  the  words,  '  His  minis- 
ters a  flaming  fire  '  (Ps.  civ.  4)  ;  the  attribute,  '  which  turned  every  vvay '  is 
added,  because  angels  are  changeable  in  form  ;  they  appear  at  one  time  as 
males,  at  another  as  females  ;  now  as  spirits  ;  now  as  angels."  By  this 
remark  they  clearly  stated  that  angels  are  incorporeal,  and  have  no  per- 
manent bodily  form  independent  of  the  mind  [of  him  who  perceives  them], 
they  exist  entirely  in  prophetic  vision,  and  depend  on  the  action  of  the 
imaginative  power,  as  will  be  explained  when  speaking  on  the  true  meaning 
of  prophecy.  As  to  the  words  ''  at  another  time  as  females,"  which  imply 
that  the  Prophets  in  prophetical  vision  perceived  angels  also  in  the  form  of 
women,  they  refer  to  the  vision  of  Zechariah  (v.  9),  "  And,  behold,  there 
came  out  two  women,  and  the  wind  was  in  their  wings."  You  know  very 
well  how  difiicult  it  is  for  men  to  form  a  notion  of  anything  immaterial, 
and  entirely  devoid  of  corporeality,  except  after  considerable  training  :  it  is 
especially  difficult  for  those  who  do  not  distinguish  between  objects  of  the 
intellect  and  objects  of  the  imagination,  and  depend  mostly  on  the  mere 
imaginative  power.  They  beUeve  that  all  imagined  things  exist  or  at  least 
have  the  possibility  of  existing  ;  but  that  which  cannot  be  imagined  does  not 
exist,  and  cannot  exist.  For  persons  of  this  class — and  the  majority  of 
thinkers  belong  to  it — cannot  arrive  at  the  true  solution  of  any  question,  or 
at  the  explanation  of  anything  doubtful.  On  account  of  this  difficulty  the 
prophetic  books  contain  expressions  which,  taken  literally,  imply  that  angels 
are  corporeal,  moving  about,  endowed  with  human  form,  receiving  com- 
mands of  God,  obeying  His  word  and  performing  whatever  He  wishes, 
according  to  His  command.  All  this  only  serves  to  lead  to  the  belief  that 
angels  exist,  and  are  alive  and  perfect,  in  the  same  way  as  we  have  explained 
in  reference  to  God.  If  the  figurative  representation  of  angels  were  limited 
to  this,  their  true  essence  would  be  believed  to  be  the  same  as  the  essence  of 
God,  since,  in  reference  to  the  Creator  expressions  are  likewise  employed, 
which  literally  imply  that  He  is  corporeal,  living,  moving  and  endowed  with 
human  form.  In  order,  therefore,  to  give  to  the  mind  of  men  the  idea  that 
the  existence  of  angels  is  lower  than  the  existence  of  God,  certain  forms  of 
lower  animals  were  introduced  in  the  description  of  angels.  It  was 
thereby  shown,  that  the  existence  of  God  is  more  perfect  than  that 
of  angels,  as  much  as  man  is  more  perfect  than  the  lower  animals. 
Nevertheless  no  organ  of  the  brute  creation  was  attributed  to  the  angels 
except  wings.  Without  wings  the  act  of  flying  appears  as  impossible  as 
that  of  walking  without  legs ;  for  these  two  modes  of  motion  can  only  be 
imagined  in  connection  with  these  organs.  The  motion  of  flying  has  been 
chosen  as  a  symbol  to  represent  that  angels  possess  life,  because  it  is  the  most 
perfect  and  most  sublime  movement  of  the  brute  creation.  Men  consider 
this  motion  a  perfection  to  such  an  extent  that  they  themselves  wish  to  be 
able  to  fly,  in  order  to  escape  easily  what  is  injurious,  and  to  obtain  quickly 
what  is  useful,  though  it  be  at  a  distance.  For  this  reason  this  motion  has 
been  attributed  to  the  angels. 

There  is  besides  another  reason.     The  bird  in  its  flight  is  sometimes  visible, 
sometimes  withdrawn  from  our  sight ;   one  moment  near  to  us,  and  in  the 


ON    THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD  67 

next  far  off  ;  and  these  are  exactly  the  circumstances  whicli  we  must  associate 
with  the  idea  of  angels,  as  will  be  explained  below.  This  imaginary  per- 
fection, the  motion  of  flight,  being  the  exclusive  property  of  the  brute  crea- 
tion, has  never  been  attributed  to  God.  You  must  not  be  misled  by  the 
passage,  "And  he  rode  upon  a  cherub,  and  he  did  fly  "  (Ps.  xviii.  10),  for  it  is 
the  cherub  that  did  fly,  and  the  simile  only  serves  to  denote  the  rapid  arrival 
of  that  which  is  referred  to  in  that  passage.  Comp.  :  "  Behold,  the  Lord 
rideth  upon  a  swift  cloud,  and  shall  come  into  Egypt  "  (Isa.  xix.  i)  ;  that  is, 
the  punishment  alluded  to  will  come  down  quickly  upon  Egypt.  Nor  should 
expressions  like  "  the  face  of  an  ox,"  "  the  face  of  a  lion,"  "  the  face  of  an 
eagle,"  "  the  sole  of  the  foot  of  a  calf,"  found  in  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  (i. 
10  and  7)  mislead  you  ;  for  all  these  are  explained  in  a  different  manner,  as  you 
will  learn  later,  and  besides,  the  prophet  only  describes  the  animals  (hiiy- 
yot).  The  subject  will  be  explained  (III.  i.),  though  by  mere  hints,  as  far  as 
necessary,  for  directing  your  attention  to  the  true  interpretation. 

The  motion  of  flying,  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  necessitates, 
according  to  our  imagination,  the  existence  of  wings ;  wings  arc  therefore 
given  to  the  angels  as  symbols  expressive  of  their  existence,  not  of  their  true 
essence.  You  must  also  bear  in  mind  that  whenever  a  thing  moves  very 
quickly,  it  is  said  to  fly,  as  that  term  implies  great  velocity  of  motion.  Comp. 
"  As  the  eagle  flieth  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  49).  The  eagle  flies  and  moves  with 
greater  velocity  than  any  other  bird,  and  therefore  it  is  introduced  in  this 
simile.  Furthermore,  the  wings  are  the  organs  [lit.  causes]  of  flight ;  hence 
the  number  of  the  wings  of  angels  in  the  prophetic  vision  corresponds  to  the 
number  of  the  causes  which  set  a  thing  in  motion,  but  this  does  not  belong 
to  the  theme  of  this  chapter.     (Comp.  II.  iv.  and  x.) 

CHAPTER  L 

When  reading  my  present  treatise,  bear  in  mind  that  by  "  faith  "  we  do  not 
understand  merely  that  which  is  uttered  with  the  lips,  but  also  that  which 
is  apprehended  by  the  soul,  the  conviction  that  the  object  [of  belief]  is  ex- 
actly as  it  is  apprehended.  If,  as  regards  real  or  supposed  truths,  you  content 
yourself  with  giving  utterance  to  them  in  words,  without  apprehending  them 
or  believing  in  them,  especially  if  you  do  not  seek  real  truth,  you  have  a  very 
easy  task  as,  in  fact,  you  will  find  many  ignorant  people  professing  articles 
of  faith  without  connecting  any  idea  with  them. 

If,  however,  you  have  a  desire  to  rise  to  a  higher  state,  viz.,  that  of  reflec- 
tion, and  truly  to  hold  the  conviction  that  God  is  One  and  possesses  true 
unity,  without  admitting  plurality  or  divisibility  in  any  sense  whatever,  you 
must  understand  that  God  has  no  essential  attribute  in  any  form  or  in  any 
sense  whatever,  and  that  the  rejection  of  corporeality  implies  the  rejection 
of  essential  attributes.  Those  who  believe  that  God  is  One,  and  that  He 
has  many  attributes,  declare  the  unity  with  their  lips,  and  assume  plurality 
in  their  thoughts.  This  is  like  the  doctrine  of  the  Christians,  who  say  that 
He  is  one  and  He  is  three,  and  that  the  three  are  one.  Of  the  same  character 
is  the  doctrine  of  those  who  say  that  God  is  One,  but  that  He  has  many 
attributes ;  and  that  He  with  His  attributes  is  One,  although  they  deny 
corporeality  and  affirm  His  most  absolute  freedom  from  matter  ;    as  if  oui 


68  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

object  were  to  seek  forms  of  expression,  not  subjects  of  belief.  For  belief  is 
only  possible  after  the  apprehension  of  a  thing  ;  it  consists  in  the  conviction 
that  the  thing  apprehended  has  its  existence  beyond  the  mind  [in  reahty] 
exactly  as  it  is  conceived  in  the  mind.  If  in  addition  to  this  we  are  convinced 
that  the  thing  cannot  be  different  in  any  way  from  what  we  believe  it  to  be, 
and  that  no  reasonable  argument  can  be  found  for  the  rejection  of  the  belief 
or  for  the  admission  of  any  deviation  from  it,  then  the  belief  is  true.  Re- 
nounce desires  and  habits,  follow  your  reason,  and  study  what  I  am  going  to 
say  in  the  chapters  which  follow  on  the  rejection  of  the  attributes ;  you  will 
then  be  fully  convinced  of  what  we  have  said  ;  you  will  be  of  those  who  truly 
conceive  the  Unity  of  God,  not  of  those  who  utter  it  with  their  lips  without 
thought,  lilce  men  of  whom  it  has  been  said,  "  Thou  art  near  in  their  mouth, 
and  far  from  their  reins  "  (Jer.  xii.  2).  It  is  right  that  a  man  should  belong 
to  that  class  of  men  who  have  a  conception  of  truth  and  understand  it,  though 
they  do  not  speak  of  it.  Thus  the  pious  are  advised  and  addressed,  "  Com- 
mune with  your  own  heart  upon  your  bed  and  be  still.     Selah."     (Ps.  iv.  5.) 

CHAPTER   LI 

There  are  many  things  whose  existence  is  manifest  and  obvious ;  some  of 
these  are  innate  notions  or  objects  of  sensation,  others  are  nearly  so  ;  and  in 
fact  they  would  require  no  proof  if  man  had  been  left  in  his  primitive  state. 
Such  are  the  existence  of  motion,  of  man's  free  will,  of  phases  of  production 
and  destruction,  and  of  the  natural  properties  perceived  by  the  senses,  e.g., 
the  heat  of  fire,  the  coldness  of  water,  and  many  other  similar  things.  False 
notions,  however,  may  be  spread  either  by  a  person  labouring  under  error, 
or  by  one  who  has  some  particular  end  in  view,  and  who  establishes  theories 
contrary  to  the  real  nature  of  things,  by  denying  the  existence  of  things  per- 
ceived by  the  senses,  or  by  affirming  the  existence  of  what  does  not  exist. 
Philosophers  are  thus  required  to  establish  by  proof  things  which  are  self- 
evident,  and  to  disprove  the  existence  of  things  which  only  exist  in  man's 
imagination.  Thus  Aristotle  gives  a  proof  for  the  existence  of  motion, 
because  it  had  been  denied  ;  he  disproves  the  reality  of  atoms,  because  it 
had  been  asserted. 

To  the  same  class  belongs  the  rejection  of  essential  attributes  in  reference 
to  God.  For  it  is  a  self-evident  truth  that  the  attribute  is  not  inherent  in 
the  object  to  which  it  is  ascribed,  but  it  is  superadded  to  its  essence,  and  is 
consequently  an  accident ;  if  the  attribute  denoted  the  essence  [to  rt  rjv  eTvai] 
of  the  object,  it  would  be  either  mere  tautology,  as  if,  e.g.,  one  would  say 
"  man  is  man,"  or  the  explanation  of  a  name,  as,  e.g.^  "  man  is  a  speaking 
animal  "  ;  for  the  words  "  speaking  animal  "  include  the  true  essence  of 
man,  and  there  is  no  third  element  besides  life  and  speech  in  the  definition 
of  man ;  when  he,  therefore,  is  described  by  the  attributes  of  life  and  speech, 
these  are  nothing  but  an  explanation  of  the  name  "  man,"  that  is  to  say,  that 
the  thing  which  is  called  man,  consists  of  life  and  speech.  It  will  now  be 
clear  that  the  attribute  must  be  one  of  two  things,  either  the  essence  of  the 
object  described — in  that  case  it  is  a  mere  explanation  of  a  name,  and  on  that 
account  wc  might  admit  the  attribute  in  reference  to  God,  but  we  reject  it 
from  another  cause  as  will  be  shown — or  the  attribute  is  something  different 


ON    THE   ATTRIBUTES   OF   GOD  69 

from  the  object  described,  some  extraneous  superadded  element ;  in  that 
case  the  attribute  would  be  an  accident,  and  he  who  merely  rejects  the 
appellation  "  accidents  "  in  reference  to  the  attributes  of  God,  does  not 
thereby  alter  their  character  ;  for  everything  superadded  to  the  essence  of 
an  object  joins  it  without  forming  part  of  its  essential  properties,  and  that 
constitutes  an  accident.  Add  to  this  the  logical  consequence  of  admitting 
many  attributes,  viz.,  the  existence  of  many  eternal  beings.  There  cannot 
be  any  belief  in  the  unity  of  God  except  by  admitting  that  He  is  one  simple 
substance,  without  any  composition  or  plurality  of  elements ;  one  from  what- 
ever side  you  view  it,  and  by  whatever  test  you  examine  it ;  not  divisible  into 
two  parts  in  any  way  and  by  any  cause,  nor  capable  of  any  form  of  plurality 
either  objectively  or  subjectively,  as  will  be  proved  in  this  treatise. 

Some  thinkers  have  gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  attributes  of  God  are 
neither  His  essence  nor  anything  extraneous  to  His  essence.  This  is  like  the 
assertion  of  some  theorists,  that  the  ideals,  i.e.,  the  universalia,  are  neither 
existing  nor  non-existent,  and  like  the  views  of  others,  that  the  atom  does  not 
fill  a  definite  place,  but  keeps  an  atom  of  space  occupied  ;  that  man  has  no 
freedom  of  action  at  all,  but  has  acquirement.  Such  things  are  only  said  ; 
they  exist  only  in  words,  not  in  thought,  much  less  in  reality.  But  as  you 
know,  and  as  all  know  who  do  not  delude  themselves,  these  theories  arc  pre- 
served by  a  multitude  of  words,  by  misleading  similes  sustained  by  declama- 
tion and  invective,  and  by  numerous  methods  borrowed  both  from  dialectics 
and  sophistry.  If  after  uttering  them  and  supporting  them  by  such  words, 
a  man  were  to  examine  for  himself  his  own  belief  on  this  subject,  he  would 
see  nothing  but  confusion  and  stupidity  in  an  endeavour  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  things  which  do  not  exist,  or  to  find  a  mean  between  two  opposites 
that  have  no  mean.  Or  is  there  a  mean  between  existence  and  non-existence, 
or  between  the  identity  and  non-identity  of  two  things  ?  But,  as  we 
said,  to  such  absurdities  men  were  forced  by  the  great  licence  given  to  the 
imagination,  and  by  the  fact  that  every  existing  material  thing  is  necessarily 
imagined  as  a  certain  substance  possessing  several  attributes ;  for  nothing 
has  ever  been  found  that  consists  of  one  simple  substance  without  any  attri- 
bute. Guided  by  such  imaginations,  men  thought  that  God  was  also  com- 
posed of  many  different  elements,  viz.,  of  His  essence  and  of  the  attributes 
superadded  to  His  essence.  Following  up  this  comparison,  some  believed 
that  God  was  corporeal,  and  that  He  possessed  attributes ;  others,  abandon- 
ing this  theory,  denied  the  corporeality,  but  retained  the  attributes.  The 
adherence  to  the  literal  sense  of  the  text  of  Holy  Writ  is  the  source  of  all  this 
error,  as  I  shall  show  in  some  of  the  chapters  devoted  to  this  theme. 

CHAPTER    LH 

Every  description  of  an  object  by  an  affirmative  attribute,  which  includes 
the  assertion  that  an  object  is  of  a  certain  kind,  must  be  made  in  one  of  the 
following  five  ways : — 

First.  The  object  Is  described  by  its  definition,  as  e.g.,  man  is  described 
as  a  being  that  lives  and  has  reason  ;  such  a  description,  containing  the  true 
essence  of  the  object,  is,  as  we  have  already  shown,  nothiij*  else  but  the  ex- 
planation of  a  name.     All  agree  that  this  kind  of  description  cannot  be  given 


70  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

of  God  ;  for  there  are  no  prenous  causes  to  His  existence,  by  which  He  could 
be  defined  :  and  on  that  account  it  is  a  well-known  principle,  received  by  aU 
the  philosophers,  who  are  precise  in  their  statements,  that  no  definition  can 

be  given  of  God. 

Secondly.  An  object  is  described  by  part  of  its  definition,  as  when,  e.g., 
man  is  described  as  a  living  being  or  as  a  rational  being.  This  kind  of 
description  includes  the  necessary  connection  [of  the  two  ideas]  ;  for  when 
we  say  that  every  man  is  rational  we  mean  by  it  that  every  being  which  has 
the  characteristics  of  man  must  also  have  reason.  All  agree  that  this  kind 
of  description  is  inappropriate  in  reference  to  God  ;  for  if  we  were  to  speak 
of  a  portion  of  His  essence,  we  should  consider  His  essence  to  be  a  compound. 
The  inappropriateness  of  this  kind  of  description  in  reference  to  God  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  preceding  kind. 

Thirdly.  An  object  is  described  by  something  different  from  its  true 
essence,  by  something  that  does  not  complement  or  establish  the  essence  of 
the  object.  The  description,  therefore,  relates  to  a  quality  ;  but  quality, 
in  its  most  general  sense,  is  an  accident.  If  God  could  be  described  in  this 
wav.  He  would  be  the  substratum  of  accidents :  a  sufficient  reason  for  re- 
jecting the  idea  that  He  possesses  quality,  since  it  diverges  from  the  true 
conception  of  His  essence.  It  is  surprising  how  those  who  admit  the  appli- 
cation of  attributes  to  God  can  reject,  in  reference  to  Him,  comparison  and 
qualification.  For  when  they  say  "  He  cannot  be  qualified,"  they  can  only 
mean  that  He  possesses  no  quality  ;  and  yet  every  positive  essential  attribute 
of  an  object  either  constitutes  its  essence, — and  in  that  case  it  is  identical 
with  the  essence, — or  it  contains  a  quality  of  the  object. 

There  are,  as  you  know,  four  kinds  of  quality  ;  I  will  give  you  instances  of 
attributes  of  each  kind,  in  order  to  show  you  that  this  class  of  attributes  cannot 
possibly  be  applied  to  God.  (a)  A  man  is  described  by  any  of  his  intellectual 
or  moral  qualities,  or  by  any  of  the  dispositions  appertaining  to  him  as  an 
animate  being,  when,  e.g.,  we  speak  of  a  person  who  is  a  carpenter,  or  who 
shrinks  from  sin,  or  who  is  ill.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  we  say,  a 
carpenter,  or  a  sage,  or  a  physician  ;  by  all  these  we  represent  certain  phy- 
sical dispositions ;  nor  does  it  make  any  diflterence  whether  we  say  "  sin- 
fearing  "  or  "  merciful."  Every  trade,  every  profession,  and  every  settled 
habit  of  man  are  certain  physical  dispositions.  All  this  is  clear  to  those  who 
have  occupied  themselves  with  the  study  of  Logic,  (b)  A  thing  is  described 
by  some  physical  quality  it  possesses,  or  by  the  absence  of  the  same,  e.g.,  as 
being  soft  or  hard.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  we  say  "  soft  or  hard,"  or 
"  strong  or  weak  "  ;  in  both  cases  we  speak  of  physical  conditions,  (c)  A 
man  is  described  by  his  passive  qualities,  or  by  his  emotions  ;  we  speak,  e.g., 
of  a  person  who  is  passionate,  irritable,  timid,  merciful,  without  implying 
that  these  conditions  have  become  permanent.  The  description  of  a  thing 
by  its  colour,  taste,  heat,  cold,  dryness,  and  moisture,  belongs  also  to  this 
class  of  attributes.  (d)  A  thing  is  described  by  any  of  its  qualities  resulting 
from  quantity  as  such  ;  we  speak,  e.g.,  of  a  thing  which  is  long,  short,  curved, 
straight,  etc. 

Consider  all  these  and  similar  attributes,  and  you  will  find  that  they  cannot 
be  employed  in  reference  to  God.  He  is  not  a  magnitude  that  any  quality 
resulting  from  quantity  as  such  could  be  possessed  by  Him  ;    He  is  not 


ON    THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF    GOD  71 

affected  by  external  influences,  and  therefore  docs  not  possess  any  quality 
resulting  from  emotion.  He  is  not  subject  to  physical  conditions,  and 
therefore  does  not  possess  strength  or  similar  qualities ;  He  is  not  an  animate 
being,  that  He  should  have  a  certain  disposition  of  the  soul,  or  acquire  certain 
properties,  as  meekness,  modesty,  etc.,  or  be  in  a  state  to  which  animate 
beings  as  such  are  subject,  as,  e.g.,  in  that  of  health  or  of  illness.  Hence  it 
follows  that  no  attribute  coming  under  the  head  of  quality  in  its  widest 
sense,  can  be  predicated  of  God.  Consequently,  these  three  classes  of  attri- 
butes, describing  the  essence  of  a  thing,  or  part  of  the  essence,  or  a  quality 
of  it,  are  clearly  inadmissible  in  reference  to  God,  for  they  imply  composition, 
which,  as  we  shall  prove,  is  out  of  question  as  regards  the  Creator.  We  say, 
with  regard  to  this  latter  point,  that  He  is  absolutely  One. 

Fourthly.       A  thing  is  described  by  its  relation  to  another  thing,  e.g.,  to 
time,  to  space,  or  to  a  different  individual ;   thus  we  say,  Zaid,  the  father  of 
A,  or  the  partner  of  B,  or  who  dwells  at  a  certain  place,  or  who  lived  at  a 
stated  time.     This  kind  of  attribute  does  not  necessarily  imply  plurality  or 
change  in  the  essence  of  the  object  described  ;   for  the  same  Zaid,  to  whom 
reference  is  made,  is  the  partner  of  Amru,  the  father  of  Beer,  the  master  of 
Khalid,  the  friend  of  Zaid,  dwells  in  a  certain   house,    and  was  born  in  a 
certain  year.     Such  relations  are  not  the  essence  of  a  thing,  nor  are  they  so 
intimately  connected  with  it  as  qualities.     At  first  thought,  it  would  seem 
that  they  may  be  employed  in  reference  to  God,  but  after  careful  and  thor- 
ough consideration  we  are  convinced  of  their  inadmissibility.     It  is  quite 
clear  that  there  is  no  relation  between  God  and  time  or  space.     For  time  is 
an  accident  connected  with  motion,  in  so  far  as  the  latter  includes  the  relation 
of  anteriority  and  posteriority,  and  is  expressed  by  number,  as  is  explained 
in  books  devoted  to  this  subject ;   and  since  motion  is  one  of  the  conditions 
to  which  only  material  bodies  are  subject,  and  God  is  immaterial,  there  can 
be  no  relation  between  Him  and  time.     Similarly  there  is  no  relation  be- 
tween Him  and  space.     But  what  we  have  to  investigate  and  to  examine  is 
this  :    whether  some  real  relation  exists  between  God  and  any  of  the  sub- 
stances created  by  Him,  by  which  He  could  be  described  ?     That  there  is  no 
correlation  between  Him  and  any  of  His  creatures  can  easily  be  seen  ;   for 
the  characteristic  of  two  objects  correlative  to  each  other  is  the  equality  of 
their  reciprocal  relation.     Now,  as  God  has  absolute  existence,  while  all 
other  beings  have  only  possible  existence,  as  we  shall  show,  there  consequently 
cannot  be  any  correlation  [between  God  and  His  creatures].     That  a  certain 
kind  of  relation  does  exist  between  them  is  by  some  considered  possible,  but 
wrongly.     It  is  impossible  to  imagine  a  relation  between  intellect  and  sight, 
although,  as  we  believe,  the  same  kind  of   existence  is  common  to  both  ; 
how,  then,  could  a  relation  be  imagined  between  any  creature  and  God,  who 
has  nothing  in  common  with  any  other  being  ;   for  even  the  term  existence 
is  applied  to  Him  and  other  things,  according  to  our  opinion,  only  by  way 
of  pure  homonymity.     Consequently  there  is  no  relation  whatever  between 
Him  and  any  other  being.     For  whenever  we  speak  of  a  relation  between 
two  things,  these   belong  to  the  same  kind  ;   but  when  two  things  belong 
to  different  kinds  though  of  the  same   class,  there   is  no  relation  between 
them.     We  therefore  do  not  say,  this  red  compared  with  that  green,  is  more, 
or  less,  or  equally  intense,  although  both  belong  to  the  same  class — colour  ; 


72  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

when  they  belong  to  two  different  classes,  there  does  not  appear  to  exist  any 
relation  between  them,  not  even  to  a  man  of  ordinary  intellect,  although  the 
two  things  belong  to  the  same  category ;  e.g.,  between  a  hundred  cubits  and 
the  heat  of  pepper  there  is  no  relation,  the  one  being  a  quality,  the  other  a 
quantity  ;  or  between  wisdom  and  sweetness,  between  meekness  and  bitter- 
ness, although  all  these  come  under  the  head  of  quality  in  its  more  general 
signification.  How,  then,  could  there  be  any  relation  between  God  and 
His  creatures,  considering  the  important  difference  between  them  in  respect 
to  true  existence,  the  greatest  of  all  differences.  Besides,  if  any  relation  ex- 
isted between  them,  God  would  be  subject  to  the  accident  of  relation  ;  and 
although  that  would  not  be  an  accident  to  the  essence  of  God,  it  would  still 
be,  to  some  extent,  a  kind  of  accident.  You  would,  therefore,  be  wrong 
if  you  applied  affirmative  attributes  in  their  literal  sense  to  God,  though  they 
contained  only  relations ;  these,  however,  are  the  most  appropriate  of  all 
attributes,  to  be  employed,  in  a  less  strict  sense,  in  reference  to  God,  because 
they  do  not  imply  that  a  plurality  of  eternal  things  exists,  or  that  any  change 
takes  place  in  the  essence  of  God,  when  those  things  change  to  which  God  is 
in  relation. 

Fifthly.  A  thing  is  described  by  its  actions  ;  I  do  not  mean  by  "  its 
actions  "  the  inherent  capacity  for  a  certain  work,  as  is  expressed  in  "  car- 
penter," "  painter,"  or  "  smith  "—for  these  belong  to  the  class  of  qualities 
which  have  been  mentioned  above — but  I  mean  the  action  the  latter  has 
performed — we  speak,  e.g.,  of  Zaid,  who  made  this  door,  built  that  wall, 
wove  that  garment.  This  kind  of  attributes  is  separate  from  the  essences 
of  the  thing  described,  and,  therefore,  appropriate  to  be  employed  in 
describing  the  Creator,  especially  since  we  know  that  these  different  actions 
do  not  imply  that  different  elements  must  be  contained  in  the  substance  of 
the  agent,  by  which  the  different  actions  are  produced,  as  will  be  explained. 
On  the  contrary,  all  the  actions  of  God  emanate  from  His  essence,  not  from 
any  extraneous  thing  superadded  to  His  essence,  as  we  have  shown. 

What  we  have  explained  in  the  present  chapter  is  this  :  that  God  is  one  in 
every  respect,  containing  no  plurality  or  any  element  superadded  to  His 
essence  :  and  that  the  many  attributes  of  different  significations  applied  in 
Scripture  to  God,  originate  in  the  multitude  of  His  actions,  not  in  a  plurality 
existing  in  His  essence,  and  are  partly  employed  with  the  object  of  conveying 
to  us  some  notion  of  His  perfection,  in  accordance  with  what  we  consider 
perfection,  as  has  been  explained  by  us.  The  possibility  of  one  simple  sub- 
stance excluding  plurality,  though  accomplishing  different  actions,  will  be 
illustrated  by  examples  in  the  next  chapter. 

CHAPTER    LHI 

The  circumstance  which  caused  men  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  divine 
attributes  is  similar  to  that  which  caused  others  to  believe  in  the  corporeality 
of  God.  The  latter  have  not  arrived  at  that  belief  by  speculation,  but  by 
following  the  literal  sense  of  certain  passages  in  the  Bible.  The  same  is  the 
case  with  the  attributes ;  when  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets  and  of  the  Law, 
God  is  described  by  attributes,  such  passages  are  taken  in  their  literal  sense, 
and  it  is  then  believed  that  God  possesses  attributes ;    as  if  He  were  to  be 


ON    THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF    GOD  73 

exalted  above  corporeality,  and  not  above  things  connected  with  corporeality, 
i.e.,  the  accidents,  I  mean  psychical  dispositions,  all  of  which  are  qualities 
[and  connected  with  corporeality].  Every  attribute  which  the  followers  of 
this  doctrine  assume  to  be  essential  to  the  Creator,  vou  will  find  to  express, 
although  they  do  not  distinctly  say  so,  a  quality  similar  to  those  which  they 
are  accustomed  to  notice  in  the  bodies  of  all  living  beings.  We  apply  to  all 
such  passages  the  principle,  "  The  Torah  speakcth  in  the  language  of  man," 
and  say  that  the  object  of  all  these  terms  is  to  describe  God  as  the  most  per- 
fect being,  not  as  possessing  those  qualities  which  are  only  perfections  in 
relation  to  created  living  beings.  Many  of  the  attributes  express  different 
acts  of  God,  but  that  difference  does  not  necessitate  any  difference  as  regards 
Him  from  whom  the  acts  proceed.  This  fact,  viz.,  that  from  one  agency 
different  effects  may  result,  although  that  agency  has  not  free  will,  and  much 
more  so  if  it  has  free  will,  I  will  illustrate  by  an  instance  taken  from  our  own 
sphere.  Fire  melts  certain  things  and  makes  others  hard,  it  boils  and  burns, 
it  bleaches  and  blackens.  If  we  described  the  fire  as  bleaching,  blackening, 
burning,  boiling,  hardening  and  melting,  we  should  be  correct,  and  yet  he 
who  does  not  know  the  nature  of  fire,  would  think  that  it  included  six  different 
elements,  one  by  which  it  blackens,  another  by  which  it  bleaches,  a  third  by 
which  it  boils,  a  fourth  by  which  it  consumes,  a  fifth  by  which  it  melts,  a  sixth 
by  which  it  hardens  things — actions  which  are  opposed  to  one  another,  and 
of  which  each  has  its  peculiar  property.  He,  however,  who  knows  the  nature 
of  fire,  will  know  that  by  virtue  of  one  quality  in  action,  namelv,  bv  heat,  it 
produces  all  these  effects.  If  this  is  the  case  with  that  which  is  done  by 
nature,  how  much  more  is  it  the  case  with  regard  to  beings  that  act  by  free 
will,  and  still  more  with  regard  to  God,  who  is  above  all  description.  If  we, 
therefore,  perceive  in  God  certain  relations  of  various  kinds — for  wisdom 
in  us  is  different  from  power,  and  power  from  will — it  does  by  no  means 
follow  that  different  elements  are  really  contained  in  Him,  that  He  contains 
one  element  by  which  He  knows,  another  by  which  He  wills,  and  another  by 
which  He  exercises  power,  as  is,  in  fact,  the  signification  of  the  attributes 
of  God]  according  to  the  Attributists.  Some  of  them  express  it  plainly, 
and  enumerate  the  attributes  as  elements  added  to  the  essence.  Others, 
however,  are  more  reserved  with  regard  to  this  matter,  but  indicate  their 
opinion,  though  they  do  not  express  it  in  distinct  and  intelligible  words. 
Thus,  e.g.,  some  of  them  say  :  "  God  is  omnipotent  by  His  essence,  wise  by 
His  essence,  living  by  His  essence,  and  endowed  with  a  will  by  His  essence." 
(I  will  mention  to  you,  as  an  instance,  man's  reason,  which  being  one  faculty 
and  implying  no  plurality,  enables  him  to  know  many  arts  and  sciences ;  by 
the  same  faculty  man  is  able  to  sow,  to  do  carpenter's  work,  to  weave,  to 
build,  to  study,  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  geometry,  and  to  govern  a  state. 
These  various  acts  resulting  from  one  simple  faculty,  which  involves  no 
plurality,  are  very  numerous ;  their  number,  that  is,  the  number  of  the 
actions  originating  in  man's  reason,  is  almost  infinite.  It  is  therefore  intelli- 
gible how  in  reference  to  God,  those  different  actions  can  be  caused  by  one 
simple  substance,  that  does  not  include  any  plurality  or  any  additional  ele- 
ment. The  attributes  found  in  Holy  Scripture  are  either  qualifications  of 
His  actions,  without  any  reference  to  His  essence,  or  indicate  absolute  per- 
fection, but  do  not  imply  that  the  essence  of  God  is  a  compound  of  various 


74  GUIDE    rOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

elements.)  For  in  not  admitting  the  te-rm  "  compound,"  they  do  not  reject 
the  iJja  of  a  compound  when  they  admit  a  substance  with  attributes. 

There  still  remains  one  difficulty  which  led  them  to  that  error,  and  which 
I  am  now  going  to  mention.  Those  who  assert  the  existence  of  the  attri- 
butes do  not  found  their  opinion  on  the  variety  of  God's  actions ;  they  say 
it  is  true  that  one  substance  can  be  the  source  of  various  effects,  but  His  essen- 
tial attributes  cannot  be  qualifications  of  His  actions,  because  it  is  impossible 
to  imagine  that  the  Creator  created  Himself.  They  vary  with  regard  to  the 
so-called  essential  attributes — I  mean  as  regards  their  number — according 
to  the  text  of  the  Scripture  which  each  of  them  follows.  I  will  enumerate 
those  on  which  all  agree,  and  the  knowledge  of  which  they  believe  that  they 
have  derived  from  reasoning,  not  from  some  words  of  the  Prophets,  namely, 
the  following  four  : — life,  power,  wisdom,  and  will.  They  believe  that  these 
are  four  different  things,  and  such  perfections  as  cannot  possibly  be  absent 
from  the  Creator,  and  that  these  cannot  be  qualifications  of  His  actions.  This 
is  their  opinion.  But  you  must  know  that  wisdom  and  life  in  reference  to 
God  are  not  different  from  each  other  ;  for  in  every  being  that  is  conscious 
of  itself,  life  and  wisdom  are  the  same  thing,  that  is  to  say,  if  by  wisdom  we 
understand  the  consciousness  of  self.  Besides,  the  subject  and  the  object 
of  that  consciousness  are  undoubtedly  identical  [as  regards  God] ;  for  accord- 
ing to  our  opinion.  He  is  not  composed  of  an  clement  that  apprehends,  and 
another  that  does  not  apprehend  ;  He  is  not  like  man,  who  is  a  combination 
of  a  conscious  soul  and  an  unconscious  body.  If,  therefore,  by  "  wisdom  " 
we  mean  the  faculty  of  self-consciousness,  wisdom  and  life  are  one  and  the 
same  thing.  They,  however,  do  not  speak  of  wisdom  in  this  sense,  but  of 
His  power  to  apprehend  His  creatures.  There  is  also  no  doubt  that  power 
and  will  do  not  exist  in  God  in  reference  to  Himself ;  for  He  cannot  have 
power  or  will  as  regards  Himself ;  we  cannot  imagine  such  a  thing.  They 
take  these  attributes  as  different  relations  between  God  and  His  creatures, 
signifying  that  He  has  power  in  creating  things,  will  in  giving  to  things  ex- 
istence as  He  desires,  and  wasdom  in  knowing  what  He  created.  Conse- 
quently, these  attributes  do  not  refer  to  the  essence  of  God,  but  express 
relations  between  Him  and  His  creatures. 

Therefore  we,  who  truly  believe  in  the  Unity  of  God,  declare,  that  as  we 
do  not  believe  that  some  clement  is  included  in  His  essence  by  which  He 
created  the  heavens,  another  by  which  He  created  the  [four]  elements,  a 
third  by  which  He  created  the  ideals,  in  the  same  way  we  reject  the  idea  that 
His  essence  contains  an  element  by  which  He  has  power,  another  element  by 
which  He  has  will,  and  a  third  by  which  He  has  a  knowledge  of  His  creatures. 
On  the  contrary,  He  is  a  simple  essence,  without  any  additional  element 
whatever  ;  He  created  the  universe,  and  knows  it,  but  not  by  any  extraneous 
force.  There  is  no  difference  whether  these  various  attributes  refer  to  His 
actions  or  to  relations  between  Him  and  His  works  ;  in  fact,  these  relations, 
as  wc  have  also  shown,  exist  only  in  the  thoughts  of  men.  This  is  what  we 
must  believe  concerning  the  attributes  occurring  in  the  books  of  the  Pro- 
phets ;  some  may  also  be  taken  as  expressive  of  the  perfection  of  God  by- 
way of  comparison  with  what  we  consider  as  perfections,  ia  us,  as  we  shall 
explain. 


ON    THE    ATTRIBUTES    OF    COD  75 

CHAPTER   LIV 

The  wisest  man,  our  Teacher  Moses,  asked  two  things  of  God,  and  received 
a  reply  respecting  both.  The  one  thing  he  asked  was,  that  God  should  let 
him  know  His  true  essence  ;  the  other,  which  in  fact  he  asked  first,  that  God 
should  let  him  know  His  attributes.  In  answer  to  both  these  petitions  God 
promised  that  He  would  let  him  know  all  His  attributes,  and  that  these  were 
nothing  but  His  actions.  He  also  told  him  that  His  true  essence  could  not 
be  perceived,  and  pointed  out  a  method  by  which  he  could  obtain  the  utmost 
knowledge  of  God  possible  for  man  to  acquire.  The  knowledge  obtained 
by  Moses  has  not  been  possesssed  by  any  human  being  before  him  or  after 
him.  His  petition  to  know  the  attributes  of  God  is  contained  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  "  Show  me  now  thy  way,  that  I  may  know  thee,  that  I  may 
find  grace  in  thy  sight"  (Exod.  xxxiii.  13).  Consider  how  many  excellent 
ideas  found  expression  in  the  words,  "  Show  me  thy  way,  that  I  may  know 
thee."  We  learn  from  them  that  God  is  known  by  His  attributes,  for 
Moses  believed  that  he  knew  Him,  when  he  was  shown  the  way  of  God. 
The  words  "  That  I  may  find  grace  in  thy  sight,"  imply  that  he  who 
knows  God  finds  grace  in  His  eyes.  Not  only  is  he  acceptable  and  welcome 
to  God  who  fasts  and  prays,  but  everyone  who  knows  Him.  He  who 
has  no  knowledge  of  God  is  the  object  of  His  wrath  and  displeasure.  The 
pleasure  and  the  displeasure  of  God,  the  approach  to  Him  and  the  vnth- 
drawal  from  Him  are  proportional  to  the  amount  of  man's  knowledge  or 
ignorance  concerning  the  Creator.  We  have  already  gone  too  far  away  from 
our  subject,  let  us  now  return  to  it. 

Moses  prayed  to  God  to  grant  him  knowledge  of  His  attributes,  and  also 
pardon  for  His  people  ;  when  the  latter  had  been  granted,  he  continued  to 
pray  for  the  knowledge  of  God's  essence  in  the  words,  "  Show  me  thy  glory  " 
(lb.  18),  and  then  received,  respecting  his  first  request,  "  Show  me  thy  way," 
the  following  favourable  reply,  "  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  to  pass  before 
thee  "  {ib.  19)  ;  as  regards  the  second  request,  however,  he  was  told,  "  Thou 
canst  not  see  my  face  "  (ib.  20).  The  words  "  all  my  goodness  "  imply  that 
God  promised  to  show  him  the  whole  creation,  concerning  which  it  has 
been  stated,  "  And  God  saw  everything  that  he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it 
was  very  good  "  (Gen.  i.  31)  ;  when  I  say  "  to  show  him  the  whole  creation," 
I  mean  to  imply  that  God  promised  to  make  him  comprehend  the  nature  of 
all  things,  their  relation  to  each  other,  and  the  way  they  are  governed  by 
God  both  in  reference  to  the  universe  as  a  whole  and  to  each  creature  in 
particular.  This  knowledge  is  referred  to  when  we  are  told  of  Moses,  "  he 
is  firmly  established  in  all  mine  house  "  (Num.  xii.  7)  ;  that  is,  "  his  know- 
ledge of  all  the  creatures  in  My  universe  is  correct  and  firmly  established  "  ; 
for  false  opinions  are  not  firmly  established.  Consequently  the  knowledge 
of  the  works  of  God  is  the  knowledge  of  His  attributes,  by  which  He  can  be 
known.  The  fact  that  God  promised  Moses  to  give  him  a  knowledge  of 
His  works,  may  be  inferred  from  the  circumstance  that  God  taught  him  such 
attributes  as  refer  exclusively  to  His  works,  viz.,  "  merciful  and  gracious, 
longsuffering  and  abundant  in  goodness,"  etc.,  (Exod.  xxxiv.  6).  It  is  there- 
fore clear  that  the  ways  which  Moses  wished  to  know,  and  which  God  taught 
him,  are  the  actions  emanating  from  God.       Our  Sages  call  them  mtddot 


76  GVIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

(qualities),  and  speak  of  the  thirteen  middothoi  God  (Talm.  B.  Rosh  ha-shanah, 
p.  175) ;  they  used  the  term  also  in  reference  to  man ;  comp.  "  there  are 
four  different  middoth  (characters)  among  those  who  go  to  the  house  of 
learning  "  ;  "There  are  four  different  middoth  (characters)  among  those  who 
give  charity"  (Mishnah  Jhot,  v.  13,  14).  They  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
God  really  possesses  middot  (qualities),  but  that  He  performs  actions  similar 
to  such  of  our  actions  as  originate  in  certain  qualities,  i.e.,  in  certam  psy- 
chical dispositions ;  not  that  God  has  really  such  dispositions.  Although 
Moses  was  shown  "  all  His  goodness,"  i.e.,  all  His  works,  only  the  thirteen 
middot  are  mentioned,  because  they  include  those  acts  of  God  which  refer 
to  the  creation  and  the  government  of  mankind,  and  to  know  these  acts  was 
the  principal  object  of  the  prayer  of  Moses.  This  is  shown  by  the  conclusion 
of  his  prayer,  "  that  I  may  know  thee,  that  I  may  find  grace  in  thy  sight, 
and  consider  that  this  nation  is  thy  people  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  16),  that  is  to 
sav,  the  people  whom  I  have  to  rule  by  certain  acts  in  the  performance  of 
which  I  must  be  guided  by  Thy  own  acts  in  governing  them.  We  have  thus 
shown  that  "  the  ways ''  used  in  the  Bible,  and  "  middot "  used  in  the 
Mishnah,  are  identical,  denoting  the  acts  emanating  from  God  in  reference 
to  the  universe. 

Whenever  any  one  of  His  actions  is  perceived  by  us,  we  ascribe  to  God 
that  emotion  which  is  the  source  of  the  act  when  performed  by  ourselves,  and 
call  Him  by  an  epithet  which  is  formed  from  the  verb  expressing  that  emotion. 
We  see,  e.g.,  how  well  He  provides  for  the  life  of  the  embryo  of  living  beings  ; 
how  He  endows  with  certain  faculties  both  the  embryo  itself  and  those  who 
have  to  rear  it  after  its  birth,  in  order  that  it  may  be  protected  from  death 
and  destruction,  guarded  against  all  harm,  and  assisted  in  the  performance 
of  all  that  is  required  [for  its  development].  Similar  acts,  when  performed 
by  us,  are  due  to  a  certain  emotion  and  tenderness  called  mercy  and  pity. 
God  is,  therefore,  said  to  be  merciful ;  e.g.,  "  Like  as  a  father  is  merciful  to 
his  children,  so  the  Lord  is  merciful  to  them  that  fear  Him  "  (Ps.  ciii.  13)  ; 
"And  I  will  spare  them,  as  a  man  spareth  (yahamoP)  his  own  son  that  serveth 
him  "  (Mai.  iii.  17).  Such  instances  do  not  imply  that  God  is  influenced 
by  a  feeling  of  mercy,  but  that  acts  similar  to  those  which  a  father  performs 
for  his  son,  out  of  pity,  mercy  and  real  affection,  emanate  from  God  solely 
for  the  benefit  of  His  pious  men,  and  are  by  no  means  the  result  of  any  im- 
pression or  change — [produced  in  God]. — When  we  give  something  to  a  per- 
son who  has  no  claim  upon  us,  we  perform  an  act  of  grace  ;  e.g.,  "  Grant 
them  graciously  unto  us  "  (Judges  xxi.  22).  [The  same  term  is  used  in 
reference  to  God,  e.g.]  "  which  God  hath  graciously  given  "  (Gen.  xxxiii. 
5)  ;  "  Because  God  hath  dealt  graciously  with  me  "  {ib.  ll).  Instances  of 
this  kind  are  numerous.  God  creates  and  guides  beings  who  have  no  claim 
upon  Him  to  be  created  and  guided  by  Him  ;  He  is  therefore  called  gracious 
(hannun). — His  actions  towards  mankind  also  include  great  calamities,  which 
overtake  individuals  and  bring  death  to  them,  or  affect  whole  families  and 
even  entire  regions,  spread  death,  destroy  generation  after  generation,  and 
spare  nothing  whatsoever.  Hence  there  occur  inundations,  earthquakes, 
dc-structive  storms,  expeditions  of  one  nation  against  the  other  for  the  sake 
of  destroying  it  with  the  sword  and  blotting  out  its  memory,  and  many  other 
evils  of  the  same  kind.     Whenever  such  evils  are  caused  by  us  to  any  person, 


ON   EXODUS   XXXIII.    13   AND   XXXIV.  7  77 

they  originate  in  great  anger,  violent  jealousy,  or  a  desire  for  revenge.  God 
is  therefore  called,  because  of  these  acts,  "  jealous,"  "  revengeful,"  "  wrath- 
ful," and  "keeping  anger"  (Nah.  i.  2);  that  is  to  say,  He  performs  acts 
similar  to  those  which,  when  performed  by  us,  originate  in  certain  psychical 
dispositions,  in  jealousy,  desire  for  retaliation,  revenge,  or  anger  ;  they  are 
in  accordance  with  the  guilt  of  those  who  are  to  be  punished,  and  not  the 
result  of  any  emotion  ;  for  He  is  above  all  defect !  The  same  is  the  case  with 
all  divine  acts  ;  though  resembling  those  acts  which  emanate  from  our 
passions  and  psychical  dispositions,  they  are  not  due  to  anything  superadded 
to  His  essence. — The  governor  of  a  country,  if  he  is  a  prophet,  should  con- 
form to  these  attributes.  Acts  [of  punishment]  must  be  performed  by  him 
moderately  and  in  accordance  with  justice,  not  merely  as  an  outlet  of  his 
passion.  He  must  not  let  loose  his  anger,  nor  allow  his  passion  to  overcome 
him  ;  for  all  passions  are  bad,  and  they  must  be  guarded  against  as  far  as  it 
lies  in  man's  power.  At  times  and  towards  some  persons  he  must  be  mer- 
ciful and  gracious,  not  only  from  motives  of  mercy  and  compassion,  but 
according  to  their  merits ;  at  other  times  and  towards  other  persons  he  must 
evince  anger,  revenge,  and  wrath  in  proportion  to  their  guilt,  but  not  from 
motives  of  passion.  He  must  be  able  to  condemn  a  person  to  death  by  fire 
without  anger,  passion,  or  loathing  against  him,  and  must  exclusively  be 
guided  by  what  he  perceives  of  the  guilt  of  the  person,  and  by  a  sense  of  the 
great  benefit  which  a  large  number  will  derive  from  such  a  sentence.  You 
have,  no  doubt,  noticed  in  the  Torah  how  the  commandment  to  annihilate 
the  seven  nations,  and  "  to  save  alive  nothing  that  brcatheth  "  (Deut.  xx.  16) 
is  followed  immediately  by  the  words,  "  That  they  teach  you  not  to  do  after 
all  their  abominations,  which  they  have  done  unto  their  gods ;  so  should  you 
sin  against  the  Lord  your  God  "  (ib.  18)  ;  that  is  to  say,  you  shall  not  thmk 
that  this  commandment  implies  an  act  of  cruelty  or  of  retaliation  ;  it  is  an 
act  demanded  by  the  tendency  of  man  to  remove  everything  that  might 
turn  him  away  from  the  right  path,  and  to  clear  away  all  obstacles  in  the  road 
to  perfection,  that  is,  to  the  knowledge  of  God.  Nevertheless,  acts  of 
mercy,  pardon,  pity,  and  grace  should  more  frequently  be  performed  by  the 
governor  of  a  country  than  acts  of  punishment ;  seeing  that  all  the  thirteen 
tniddoth  of  God  are  attributes  of  mercy  with  only  one  exception,  namely, 
"  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  "  (Exod.  xxxiv.  7)  ; 
for  the  meaning  of  the  preceding  attribute  (in  the  original  ve-nakkeh  lo 
yenakkeh)  is  "  and  he  will  not  utterly  destroy  "  ;  (and  not  "  He  will  by  no 
means  clear  the  guilty  ")  ;  comp.  "  And  she  will  be  utterly  destroyed  {ve- 
nikketah),  she  shall  sit  upon  the  ground  "  (Isa.  iii.  26).  When  it  is  said  that 
God  is  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  this  refers  ex- 
clusively to  the  sin  of  idolatry,  and  to  no  other  sin.  That  this  is  the  case 
may  be  inferred  from  what  is  said  in  the  ten  commandments,  "  upon  the 
third  and  fourth  generation  of  my  enemies"  (Exod.  xx.  5),  none  except 
idolaters  being  called  "  enemy  "  ;  comp.  also  "  every  abomination  to  the 
Lord,  which  he  hateth  "  (Deut.  xii.  31).  It  was,  however,  considered  suffi- 
cient to  extend  the  punishment  to  the  fourth  generation,  because  the  fourth 
generation  is  the  utmost  a  man  can  see  of  his  posterity  ;  and  when,  therefore, 
the  idolaters  of  a  place  are  destroyed,  the  old  man  worshipping  idols  is  killed, 
his  son,  his  grandson,  and  his  great-grandson,  that  is,  the  fourth  generation. 


78  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

By  the  mention  of  this  attribute  we  are,  as  it  were,  told  that  His  command- 
ments, undoubtedly  in  harmony  with  His  acts,  include  the  death  even  of  the 
little  children  of  idolaters  because  of  the  sin  of  their  fathers  and  grand- 
fathers. This  principle  we  find  frequently  applied  in  the  Law,  as,  e.g.,  we 
read  concerning  the  city  that  has  been  led  astray  to  idolatry,  "  destroy  it 
utterly,  and  all  that  is  therein  "  (Deut.  xiii.  15).  All  this  has  been  ordained 
in  order  that  every  vestige  of  that  which  would  lead  to  great  injury  should 
be  blotted  out,  as  we  have  explained. 

We  have  gone  too  far  away  from  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  but  we  have 
shown  why  it  has  been  considered  sufficient  to  mention  only  these  (thirteen) 
out  of  all  His  acts ;  namely,  because  they  are  required  for  the  good  govern- 
ment of  a  country  ;  for  the  chief  aim  of  man  should  be  to  make  himself,  as 
far  as  possible,  similar  to  God  :  that  is  to  say,  to  make  his  acts  similar  to  the 
acts  of  God,  or  as  our  Sages  expressed  it  in  explaining  the  verse,  "  Ye  shall 
be  holy  "  (Lev.  xxi.  2)  :  "  He  is  gracious,  so  be  you  also  gracious  ;  He  is 
merciful,  so  be  you  also  merciful." 

The  principal  object  of  this  chapter  was  to  show  that  all  attributes  ascribed 
to  God  are  attributes  of  His  acts,  and  do  not  imply  that  God  has  any  quali- 
ties. 

CHAPTER   LV 

We  have  already,  on  several  occasions,  shown  in  this  treatise  that  everything 
that  implies  corporeality  or  passiveness,  is  to  be  negatived  in  reference  to 
God,  for  all  passiveness  implies  change  ;   and  the  agent  producing  that  state 
is  undoubtedly  different  from  the  object  affected  by  it ;    and  if  God  could 
be  affected  in  any  way  whatever,  another  being  beside  Him  would  act  on 
Him  and  cause  change  in  Him.     All  kinds  of  non-existence  must  likewise  be 
negatived  in  reference  to  Him  ;  no  perfection  whatever  can  therefore  be 
imagined  to  be  at  one  time  absent  from  Him,  and  at  another  present  in  Him  : 
for  if  this  were  the  case.  He  would  [at  a  certain  time]  only  be  potentially 
perfect.     Potentiality  always  implies  non-existence,  and  when  anything  has 
to  pass  from  potentiality  into  reality,  another  thing  that  exists  in  reality  is 
required  to  effect  that  transition.     Hence  it  follows  that  all  perfections  must 
really  exist  in  God,  and  none  of  them  must  in  any  way  be  a  mere  potentiality. 
Another  thing  likewise  to  be  denied  in  reference  to  God,  is  similarity  to  any 
existing  being.     This  has  been  generally  accepted,  and  is  also  mentioned  in 
the  books  of  the  Prophets ;  e.g.,  "  To  whom,  then,  will  you  liken  me  ?  "  (Isa. 
xl.  25)  ;  "  To  whom,  then,  will  you  liken  God  ?  "  {ib.  18)  ;   "  There  is  none 
like  unto  Thee  "  (Jer.  x.  6).  Instances  of  this  kind  are  frequent.    In  short,  it  is 
necessary  to  demonstrate  by  proof  that  nothing  can  be  predicated  of  God  that 
implies  any  of  the  following  four  things :  corporeality,  emotion  or  change,  non- 
existence,— e.g.,  that  something  would  be  potential  at  one  time  and  real  at 
another — and  similarity  with  any  of  His  creatures.     In  this  respect  our  know- 
ledge of  God  is  aided  by  the  study  of  Natural  Science.     For  he  who  is  ignorant 
of    the   latter   cannot    understand    the    defect   implied    in    emotions,    the 
difference  between  potentiality  and  reality,  the  non-existence  implied  in  all 
potentiality,  the  inferiority  of  a  thing  that  exists  in  potentia  to  that  which 
moves  in  order  to  cause  its  transition  from  potentiality  into  reality,  and  tlie 


ON    EXODUS    XXXIII.    13    AND    XXXIV.    7         79 

inferiority  of  that  which  moves  for  this  purpose  compared  with  its  condition 
when  the  transition  has  been  eflfccted.  He  who  knows  these  things,  but 
without  their  proofs,  does  not  know  the  details  which  logically  result  from 
these  general  propositions ;  and  therefore  he  cannot  prove  that  God  exists,  or 
that  the  [four]  things  mentioned  above  arc  inadmissible  in  reference  to  God. 
Having  premised  these  remarks,  I  shall  explain  in  the  next  chapter  the  error 
of  those  who  believe  that  God  has  essential  attributes ;  those  who  have  some 
knowledge  of  Logic  and  Natural  Science  will  understand  it. 

CHAPTER   LVI 

Similarity  is  based  on  a  certain  relation  between  two  things ;  if  between  two 
things  no  relation  can  be  found,  there  can  be  no  similarity  between  them, 
and  there  is  no  relation  between  two  things  that  have  no  similarity  to  each 
other  ;  e.g.,  we  do  not  say  this  heat  is  similar  to  that  colour,  or  this  voice  is 
similar  to  that  sweetness.     This  is  self-evident.     Since  the  existence  of  a 
relation  between  God  and  man,  or  between  Him  and  other  beings  has  been 
denied,  similarity  must  likewise  be  denied.     You  must  know  that  two  things 
of  the  same  kind — i.e.,  whose  essential  properties  are  the  same,  and  which  are 
distinguished  from   each   other   by  greatness    and   smallness,  strength  and 
weakness,  etc. — are  necessarily  similar,  though  different  in  this  one  way  ;  e.g., 
a  grain  of  mustard  and  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars  are  similar  as  regards  the 
three  dimensions,  although  the  one  is  exceedingly  great,  the  other  exceed- 
ingly small,  the  property  of  having  [three]  dimensions  is  the  same  in  both  ; 
or  the  heat  of  wax  melted  by  the  sun  and  the  heat  of  the  element  of  fire,  are 
similar  as  regards  heat ;    although  the  heat  is  exceedingly  great  in  the  one 
case,  and  exceedingly  small  in  the  other,  the  existence  of  that  quality  (heat) 
is  the  same  in  both.      Thus  those  who  believe  in  the  presence  of  essential 
attributes     in    God,    viz.,    Existence,    Life,    Power,    Wisdom,    and    Will, 
should  know  that  these  attributes,  when  applied  to  God,   have  not  the 
same  meaning  as  when  applied  to  us,  and  that  the  difference  does  not  only 
consist  in  magnitude,  or  in  the  degree  of  perfection,  stability,  and  durability. 
It  cannot  be  said,  as  they  practically  believe,  that  Plis  existence  is  only  more 
stable.  His  life  more  permanent.  His  power  greater,  His  wisdom  more  per- 
fect, and  His    wiU  more  general  than  ours,  and  that  the  same  definition 
appHes  to  both.     This  is  in  no  way  admissible,  for  the  expression  "  more 
than  "  is  used  in  comparing  two  things  as  regards  a  certain  attribute  pre- 
dicated of  both  of  them  in  exactly  the  same  sense,  and  consequently  implies 
similarity  [between  God  and  His  creatures].     When  they  ascribe  to  God 
essential  attributes,  these  so-called  essential  attributes  should  not  have  any 
similarity  to  the  attributes  of  other  things,  and  should  according  to  their  own 
opinion  not  be  included  in  one  of  the  same  definition,  just  as  there  is  no 
similarity  between  the  essence  of  God  and  that  of  other  beings.     They  do 
not  follow  this  principle,  for  they  hold  that  one  definition  may  include  them, 
and  that,  nevertheless,  tliere  is  no  similarity  between  them.     Those  who  are 
familiar  with  the  meaning  of  similarity  will  certainly  understand  that  the 
term  existence,  when  applied  to  God  and  to  other  beings,  is  perfectly  ho- 
monymous.    In  like  manner,  the  terms  Wisdom,  Power,  Will,  and  Life  are 
applied  to  God  and  to  other  beings  by  way  of  perfect  homonymity,  admitting 


8o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

of  no    comparison  whatever.     Nor   must  you    think  that   these  attributes 
are    employed   as    hvbrid    terms;    for    hybrid    terms   are     such    as    are 
applied    to   two   things   which    have    a   similarity    to    each    other    m    re- 
spect to  a  certain  property  which  is  in  both  of  them  an  accident,  not  an 
essential,  constituent  element.     The  attributes  of  God,  however,  are  not 
considered  as  accidental  by  any  intelligent  person,  while  all  attributes  applied 
to  man  are  accidents,  according  to  the  Mutakallemim.     I  am  therefore  at  a 
loss  to  see  how  they  can  find  any  similarity  [between  the  attributes  of  God 
and  those  of  man]  ;    how  their  definitions  can  be  identical,  and  their  signi- 
fications the  same  !     This  is  a  decisive  proof  that  there  is,  in  no  way  or  sense, 
anything  common  to  the  attributes  predicated  of  God,  and  those  used  in 
reference  to  ourselves ;   they  have  only  the  same  names,  and  nothing  else  is 
common  to  them.     Such  being  the  case,  it  is  not  proper  to  believe,  on  account 
of  the  use  of  the  same  attributes,  that  there  is  in  God  something  additional 
to  His  essence,  in  the  same  way  as  attributes  are  joined  to  our  essence.     This 
is  most  important  for  those  who  understand  it.     Keep  it  in  meniory,  and 
study  it  thoroughly,  in  order   to   be  well   prepared   for   that  which  I  am 
going  to  explain  to  you. 

CHAPTER    I.Vn 

On  attributes ;  remarks  more  recondite  than  the  preceding.  It  is  known 
that  existence  is  an  accident  appertaining  to  all  things,  and  therefore  an 
element  superadded  to  their  essence.  This  must  evidently  be  the  case  as 
regards  everything  the  existence  of  which  is  due  to  some  cause  ;  its  existence 
is  an  element  superadded  to  its  essence.  But  as  regards  a  being  whose  ex- 
istence is  not  due  to  any  cause — God  alone  is  that  being,  for  His  existence,  as 
we  have  said,  is  absolute — existence  and  essence  are  perfectly  identical ;  He 
is  not  a  substance  to  which  existence  is  joined  as  an  accident,  as  an  additional 
element.  His  existence  is  always  absolute,  and  has  never  been  a  new  cle- 
ment or  an  accident  in  Him.  Consequently  God  exists  without  possessing 
the  attribute  of  existence.  Similarly  He  lives,  without  possessing  the  attri- 
bute of  life  ;  knows,  without  possessing  the  attribute  of  knowledge  ;  is 
omnipotent  witliout  possessing  the  attribute  of  omnipotence ;  is  wise, 
without  possessing  the  attribute  of  wisdom  ;  all  this  reduces  itself  to  one 
and  the  same  entity  ;  there  is  no  plurality  in  Him,  as  will  be  shown.  It  is 
further  necessary  to  consider  that  unity  and  plurality  are  accidents  super- 
vening to  an  object  according  as  it  consists  of  many  elements  or  of  one. 
This  is  fully  explained  in  the  book  called  Metaphysics.  In  the  same  way  as 
number  is  not  the  substance  of  the  things  numbered,  so  is  unity  not  the  sub- 
stance of  the  thing  which  has  the  attribute  of  unity,  for  unity  and  plurality 
are  accidents  belonging  to  the  category  of  discrete  quantity,  and  supervening 
to  such  objects  as  are  capable  of  receiving  them. 

To  that  being,  however,  which  has  truly  simple,  absolute  existence,  and  in 
which  composition  is  inconceivable,  the  accident  of  unity  is  as  inadmissible 
as  the  accident  of  plurality  ;  that  is  to  say,  God's  unity  is  not  an  element 
superadded,  but  He  is  One  without  possessing  the  attribute  of  unity.  The 
investigation  of  this  subject,  which  is  almost  too  subtle  for  our  understanding, 
must  not  be  based  on  current  expressions  employed  in  describing  it,  for  these 


ATTRIBUTES    OF    GOD  Si 

are  the  great  source  of  error.  It  would  be  extremely  difficult  for  us  to  find, 
in  any  language  whatsoever,  words  adequate  to  this  subject,  and  we  can  only 
employ  inadequate  language.  In  our  endeavour  to  show  that  God  does  not 
include  a  plurality,  we  can  only  say  "  He  is  one,"  although  "  one  "  and 
"  many  "  are  both  terms  which  serve  to  distinguish  quantity.  We  therefore 
make  the  subject  clearer,  and  show  to  the  understanding  the  way  of  truth 
by  saying  He  is  one  but  does  not  possess  the  attribute  of  unity. 

The  same  is  the  case  when  we  say  God  is  the  First  {Kadmon),  to  express 
that  He  has  not  been  created  ;  the  term  "  First "  is  decidedly  inaccurate, 
for  it  can  in  its  true  sense  only  be  applied  to  a  being  that  is  subject  to  the 
relation  of  time  ;  the  latter,  however,  is  an  accident  to  motion  which  again 
is  connected  with  a  body.  Besides  the  attribute  "  first  "  is  a  relative  term, 
being  in  regard  to  time  the  same  as  the  terms  "  long  "  and  "  short  "  are  in 
regard  to  a  line.  Both  expressions,  "  first  "  and  "  created,"  are  equally 
inadmissible  in  reference  to  any  being  to  which  the  attribute  of  time  is  not 
applicable,  just  as  we  do  not  say  "  crooked  "  or  "  straight  "  in  reference  to 
taste,  "  salted  "  or  "  insipid  "  in  reference  to  the  voice.  These  subjects 
are  not  unknown  to  those  who  have  accustomed  themselves  to  seek  a  true 
understanding  of  the  things,  and  to  establish  their  properties  in  accordance 
with  the  abstract  notions  which  the  mind  has  formed  of  them,  and  who  are 
not  misled  by  the  inaccuracy  of  the  words  employed.  All  attributes,  such 
as  "  the  First,"  "  the  Last,"  occurring  in  the  Scriptures  in  reference  to  God, 
are  as  metaphorical  as  the  expressions  "  ear  "  and  "  eye."  They  simply 
signify  that  God  is  not  subject  to  any  change  or  innovation  whatever  ;  they 
do  not  imply  that  God  can  be  described  by  time,  or  that  there  is  any  com- 
parison between  Him  and  any  other  being  as  regards  time,  and  that  He  is 
called  on  that  account  "  the'  first  "  and  "  the  last."  In  short,  all  similar 
expressions  are  borrowed  from  the  language  commonly  used  among  the 
people.  In  the  same  way  we  use  "  One  "  in  reference  to  God,  to  express 
th^t  there  is  nothing  similar  to  Him,  but  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  an 
attribute  of  unity  is  added  to  His  essence. 

CHAPTER   LVIII 

This  chapter  is  even  more  recondite  than  the  preceding.  Know  that  the 
negative  attributes  of  God  are  the  true  attributes  :  they  do  not  include  any 
incorrect  notions  or  any  deficiency  whatever  in  reference  to  God,  while 
positive  attributes  imply  polytheism,  and  are  inadequate,  as  we  have  already 
shown.  It  is  now  necessary  to  explain  how  negative  expressions  can  in  a 
certain  sense  be  employed  as  attributes,  and  how  they  are  distinguished  from 
positive  attributes.  Then  I  shall  show  that  we  cannot  describe  the  Creator 
by  any  means  except  by  negative  attributes.  An  attribute  does  not  ex- 
clusively belong  to  the  one  object  to  which  it  is  related  ;  while  qualifying 
one  thing,  it  can  also  be  employed  to  qualify  other  things,  and  is.in  that  case 
not  peculiar  to  that  one  thing.  E.g.,  if  you  see  an  object  from  a  distahce, 
and  on  enquiring  what  it  is,  are  told  that  it  is  a  living  being,  you  have  cer- 
tainly learnt  an  attribute  of  the  object  seen,  and  although  that  attribute 
does  not  exclusively  belong  to  the  object  perceived,  it  expresses  that  the 
object  is  not  a  plant  or  a  mineral.     Again,  if  a  man  is  in  a  certain  house,  and 


82  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

you  know  that  something  is  in  the  house,  but  not  exactly  what,  you  ask  what 
is  in  that  house,  and  you  are  told,  not  a  plant  nor  a  mineral.  You  have 
thereby  obtained  some  special  knowledge  of  the  thing  ;  you  have  learnt  that 
it  is  a  living  being,  although  you  do  not  yet  know  what  kind  of  a  living  being 
it  is.  The  negative  attributes  have  this  in  common  with  the  positive,  that 
they  necessarily  circumscribe  the  object  to  some  extent,  although  such 
circumscription  consists  only  in  the  exclusion  of  what  otherwise  would  not 
be  excluded.  In  the  following  point,  however,  the  negative  attributes  are 
distinguished  from  the  positive.  The  positive  attributes,  although  not 
peculiar  to  one  thing,  describe  a  portion  of  what  we  desire  to  know,  either 
some  part  of  its  essence  or  some  of  its  accidents ;  the  negative  attributes,  on 
the  other  hand,  do  not,  as  rc.^ards  the  essence  of  the  thing  which  we  desire 
to  know,  in  any  way  tell  us  what  it  is,  except  it  be  indirectly,  as  has  been 
shown  in  the  instance  given  by  us. 

After  this  introduction,  I  would  observe  that, — as  has  already  been  shown 

God's  existence  is  absolute,  that  it  includes  no  composition,  as  will  be 

proved,  and  that  we  comprehend  only  the  fact  that    He    exists,  not  His 
essence.     Consequently  it  is  a  false  assumption  to  hold  that  He  has  any 
positive  attribute  ;    for  He  does  not  possess  existence  in  addition   to   His 
essence  ;    it  therefore  cannot  be  said  that  the  one  may  be  described  as  an 
attribute  [of  the  other]  ;    much  less  has  He  [in  addition  to  His  existence]  a 
compound  essence,  consisting  of  two  constituent  elements  to  which  the 
attribute  could  refer ;   still  less  has  He  accidents,  which  could  be  described 
by  an  attribute.     Hence    it  is  clear  that  He  has  no  positive  attribute  what- 
ever.    The  negative  attributes,  however,  are  those  which  are  necessary  to 
direct  the  mind  to  the  truths  which  we  must  believe  concerning  God  ;   for, 
on  the  one  hand,  they  do  not  imply  any  plurality,  and,  on  the  other,  they 
convey  to  man  the  highest  possible  knowledge  of  God  ;    e.g.,  it  has  been 
established  by    proof  that  some  being  must  exist  besides  those  things  which 
can  be  perceived  by  the  senses,  or  apprehended  by  the  mind  ;  when  we  say 
of  this  being,  that  it  exists,  we  mean  that   its   non-existence  is  impossible. 
We  then  perceive  that  such  a  being  is  not,  for  instance,  like  the  four  elements, 
which  are  inanimate,  and  we  therefore  say  that  it  is  living,  expressing  thereby 
that  it  is  not  dead.     We  call  such  a  being  incorporeal,  because  we  notice  that 
it  is  unlike  the  heavens,  which  are  living,  but  material.     Seeing  that    it  is 
also  diflFerent  from  the  intellect,  which,  though  incorporeal  and  living,  owes 
its  existence  to  some  cause,  we  say  it  is  the  first,  expressing  thereby  that  its 
existence  is  not  due  to  any  cause.  We  further  notice,  that  the  existence,  that  is 
the  essence,  of  this  being  is  not  limited  to  its  own  existence  ;  many  existences 
emanate  from  it,  and  its  influence  is  not  like  that  of  the  fire  in  producing 
heat,  or  that  of  the  sun  in  sending  forth  light,   but  consists  in  constantly 
giving  them  stability  and  order  by  well-established  rule,  as  we  shall  show  : 
we  say,  on  that  account,  it  has  power,  wisdom,  and  will,  i.e.,  it  is  not  feeble 
or  ignorant,  or  hasty,  and  does  not  abandon  its  creatures ;  when  we  say  that 
it  is  not  feeble,  we  mean  that  its  existence  is  capable  of  producing  the  exist- 
ence of  many  other  things ;   by  saying  that  it  is  not  ignorant,  we  mean  "  it 
perceives  "  or  "  it  lives," — for  everything  that  perceives  is  living — by  saying 
"  it  is  not  hasty,  and  does  not  abandon  its  creatures,"  we  mean  that  all  these 
creatures  preserve  a  certain  order  and  arrangement ;    they  are  not  left  to 


ATTRIBUTES    OF    GOD  83 

themselves;  they  are  not  produced  aimlessly,  but  whatever  condition  they 
receive  from  that  being  is  given  with  design  and  intention.  We  thus  learn 
that  there  is  no  other  being  like  unto  God,  and  we  say  that  He  is  One,  i.e., 
there  are  not  more  Gods  than  one. 

It  has  thus  been  shown  that  every  attribute  predicated  of  God  either  de- 
notes the  quality  of  an  action,  or — when  the  attribute  is  intended  to  convey 
some  idea  of  the  Divine  Being  itself,  and  not  of  His  actions — the  negation  of 
the  opposite.  Even  these  negative  attributes  must  not  be  formed  and 
applied  to  God,  except  in  the  way  in  which,  as  you  know,  sometimes  an  attri- 
bute is  negatived  in  reference  to  a  thing,  although  that  attribute  can  natu- 
rally never  be  applied  to  it  in  the  same  sense,  as,  e.g.,  we  say,  "  This  wall  does 
not  see."  Those  who  read  the  present  work  are  aware  that,  notwithstanding 
all  the  efforts  of  the  mind,  we  can  obtain  no  knowledge  of  the  essence  of  the 
heavens — a  revolving  substance  which  has  been  measured  by  us  in  spans  and 
cubits,  and  examined  even  as  regards  the  proportions  of  the  several  spheres 
to  each  other  and  respecting  most  of  their  motions — although  we  know  that 
they  must  consist  of  matter  and  form  ;  but  the  matter  not  being  the  same 
as  sublunary  matter,  we  can  only  describe  the  heavens  in  terms  expressing 
negative  properties,  but  not  in  terms  denoting  positive  qualities.  Thus  we 
say  that  the  heavens  are  not  light,  not  heavy,  not  passive  and  therefore  not 
subject  to  impressions,  and  that  they  do  not  possess  the  sensations  of  taste 
and  smell ;  or  we  use  similar  negative  attributes.  All  this  we  do,  because 
we  do  not  know  their  substance.  What,  then,  can  be  the  result  of  our  efforts, 
when  we  try  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  a  Being  that  is  free  from  substance, 
that  is  most  simple,  whose  existence  is  absolute,  and  not  due  to  any  cause, 
to  whose  perfect  essence  nothing  can  be  superadded,  and  whose  perfection 
consists,  as  we  have  shown,  in  the  absence  of  all  defects.  All  we  understand 
is  the  fact  that  He  exists,  that  He  is  a  Being  to  whom  none  of  His  creatures 
is  similar,  who  has  nothing  in  common  with  them,  who  does  not  include 
pluraHty,  who  is  never  too  feeble  to  produce  other  beings,  and  whose  relation 
to  the  universe  is  that  of  a  steersman  to  a  boat ;  and  even  this  is  not  a  real 
relation,  a  real  simile,  but  serves  only  to  convey  to  us  the  idea  that  God  rules 
the  universe  ;  that  is,  that  He  gives  it  duration,  and  preserves  its  necessary 
arrangement.  This  subject  will  be  treated  more  fully.  Praised  be  He  ! 
In  the  contemplation  of  His  essence,  our  comprehension  and  knowledge 
prove  insufficient ;  in  the  examination  of  His  works,  how  they  necessarily 
result  from  His  will,  our  knowledge  proves  to  be  ignorance,  and  in  the  en- 
deavour to  extol  Him  in  words,  all  our  efforts  in  speech  are  mere  weakness 
and  failure  1 

CHAPTER   LTX 

The  following  question  might  perhaps  be  asked  :  Since  there  is  no  possibility 
of  obtaining  a  knowledge  of  the  true  essence  of  God,  and  since  it  has  also  been 
proved  that  the  only  thing  that  man  can  apprehend  of  Him  is  the  fact  that 
He  exists,  and  that  all  positive  attributes  are  inadmissible,  as  has  been  shown  ; 
what  is  the  difference  among  those  who  have  obtained  a  knowledge  of  God  ? 
Must  not  the  knowledge  obtained  by  our  teacher  Moses,  and  by  Solomon,  be 
the  same  as  that  obtained  by  any  one  of  the  lowest  class  of  philosophers,  since 


84  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

there  can  be  no  adaition  to  this  knowledge  ?     But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
generally  accepted   among  theologians  and  also  among  philosophers,  that 
there  can  be  a  great  difference  between  two  persons  as  regards  the  know- 
ledge of  God  obfained  by  them.     Know  that  this  is  really  the  case,  that  those 
who  have  obtained  a  knowledge  of  God  diflFer  greatlv  from  each  other  ;   for 
in  the  same  way  as  by  each  additional  attribute  an  object  is  more  specified, 
and  is  brought  nearer  to  the  true  apprehension  of  the  observer,  so  by  each 
additional  negative  attribute  you  advance  toward  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  you  are  nearer  to  it  than  he  who  does  not  negative,  in  reference  to  God, 
those  qualities  which  you  are  convinced  by  proof  must  be  negatived.     There 
may  thus  be  a  man  who  after  having  earnestly  devoted  many  years  to  the  pur- 
suit of  one  science,  and  to  the  true  understanding  of  its  principles,  till  he  is 
fuUv  convinced  of  its  truths,  has  obtained  as  the  sole  result  of  this  study  the 
conviction  that  a  certain  quality  must  be  negatived   in    reference  to  God, 
and    the  capacity   of  demonstrating   that   it   is   impossible  to   apply  it  to 
Him.      Superficial   thinkers  will  have   no  proof   for  this,  will  doubtfully 
ask.  Is  that   thing  existing  in  the  Creator,  or  not  ?     And   those   who  are 
deprived  of   sight  will  positively  ascribe   it   to  God,  although  it   has   been 
clearly  shown  that  He  does  not  possess  it.     E.g.,  while  I  show  that  God  is 
incorporeal,  another  doubts  and  is  not  certain    whether  He  is  corporeal 
or  incorporeal  ;    others  even  positively  declare  that  He  is  corporeal,  and 
appear    before    the    Lord  with    that    belief.       Now    see    how    great    the 
difference  is  between  these  three  men  ;    the  first  is  undoubtedly  nearest  to 
the  Almighty  ;   the  second  is  remote,  and  the  third  still  more  distant  from 
Him.     If  there  be  a  fourth  person  who  holds  himself  convinced  by  proof 
that  emotions  are  impossible  in  God,  while  the  first    who  rejects  the  cor- 
poreality, is  not  convinced  of  that  impossibility,  that  fourth  person  is  un- 
doubtedly nearer  the  knowledge  of  God  than  the  first,  and  so  on,  so  that  a 
person  who,  convinced  by  proof,  negatives  a  number  of  things  in  reference 
to  God,  which  according  to  our  belief  may  possibly  be  in  Him  or  emanate 
from  Him,  is  undoubtedly  a  more  perfect  man  than  we  are,  and  would  sur- 
pass us  still  more  if  we  positively  believed  these  things  to  be  properties  of 
God.     It  will  now  be  clear  to  you,  that  every  time  you  establish  by  proof 
the  negation  of  a  thing  in  reference  to  God,  you  become  more  perfect,  while 
with  every  additional  positive  assertion  you  follow  your  imagination  and 
recede  from  the  true  knowledge  of  God.     Only  by  such  ways  must  we  ap- 
proach the  knowledge  of  God,  and  by  such  researches  and  studies  as  would 
show  us  the  inapplicability  of  what  is  inadmissible  as  regards  the  Creator, 
not  by  such  methods  as  would  prove  the  necessity  of  ascribing  to  Him  any- 
thing extraneous  to  His  essence,  or  asserting  that  He  has  a  certain  perfec- 
tion, when  we  find  it  to  be  a  perfection  in  relation  to  us.     The   perfections 
are  all  to  some  extent  acquired  properties,  and  a  property  which  must  be 
acquired  does  not  exist  in  everything  capable  of  making  such  acquisition. 

You  must  bear  in  mind,  that  by  affirming  anything  of  God,  you  are  re- 
moved from  liim  in  two  respects ;  first,  whatever  you  affirm,  is  only  a  per- 
fection in  relation  to  us  ;  secondly.  He  does  not  possess  anything  superadded 
to  this  essence  ;  His  essence  includes  all  His  perfections,  as  we  have  shown. 
Since  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  even  that  knowledge  of  God  which  is 
accessible  to  man  cannot  be  attained  except  by  negations,  and  that  negations 


ATTRIBVTES    OF   GOD  85 

do  not  convey  a  true  idea  of  the  being  to  which  they  refer,  all  people,  both 
of  past  and  present  generations,  declared  that  God  cannot  be  the  object  of 
human  comprehension,  that  none  but  Himself  comprehends  what  He  is,  and 
that  our  knowledge  consists  in  knowing  that  we  are  unable  truly  to  compre- 
hend Him.  All  philosophers  say,  "  He  has  overpowered  us  by  His  grace, 
and  is  invisible  to  us  through  the  intensity  of  His  light,"  like  the  sun  which 
cannot  be  perceived  by  eyes  which  are  too  weak  to  bear  its  rays.  Much 
more  has  been  said  on  tliis  topic,  but  it  is  useless  to  repeat  it  here.  The  idea 
is  best  expressed  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  "  Silence  is  praise  to  Thee  "  (Ixv.  2). 
It  is  a  very  expressive  remark  on  this  subject ;  for  whatever  we  utter  with  the 
intention  of  extolling  and  of  praising  Him,  contains  something  that  cannot 
be  applied  to  God,  and  includes  derogatory  expressions  ;  it  is  therefore  more 
becoming  to  be  silent,  and  to  be  content  with  intellectual  reflection,  as  has 
been  recommended  by  men  of  the  highest  culture,  in  the  words  "  Commune 
with  your  own  heart  upon  your  bed,  and  be  still "  (Ps.  iv.  4).  You  must 
surely  know  the  following  celebrated  passage  in  the  Talmud — would  that 
all  passages  in  the  Talmud  were  like  that ! — although  it  is  known  to  you,  I 
quote  it  literally,  as  I  wish  to  point  out  to  you  the  ideas  contained  in  it  : 
"A  certain  person,  reading  prayers  in  the  presence  of  Rabbi  Haninah,  said, 
'  God,  the  great,  the  valiant  and  the  tremendous,  the  powerful,  the  strong, 
and  the  mighty.' — The  rabbi  said  to  him.  Have  you  finished  all  the  praises 
of  your  Master  ?  The  three  epithets,  '  God,  the  great,  the  valiant  and  the 
tremendous,'  we  should  not  have  applied  to  God,  had  Moses  not  men- 
tioned them  in  the  Law,  and  had  not  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  come 
forward  subsequently  and  established  their  use  in  the  prayer ;  and  you  say 
all  this  !  Let  this  be  illustrated  by  a  parable.  There  was  once  an  earthly 
king,  possessing  millions  of  gold  coin  ;  he  was  praised  for  owning  millions  of 
silver  coin  ;  was  this  not  really  dispraise  to  him  ?  "  Thus  far  the  opinion  of 
the  pious  rabbi.  Consider,  first,  how  repulsive  and  annoying  the  accumu- 
lation of  all  these  positive  attributes  was  to  him  ;  next,  how  he  showed  that, 
if  we  had  only  to  follow  our  reason,  we  should  never  have  composed  these 
prayers,  and  we  should  not  have  uttered  any  of  them.  It  has,  however, 
become  necessary  to  address  men  in  words  that  should  leave  some  idea  in 
their  minds,  and,  in  accordance  with  the  saying  of  our  Sages,  "  The  Torah 
speaks  in  the  language  of  men,"  the  Creator  has  been  described  to  us  in 
terms  of  our  own  perfections ;  but  we  should  not  on  that  account  have 
uttered  any  other  than  the  three  above-mentioned  attributes,  and  we  should 
not  have  used  them  as  names  of  God  except  when  meeting  with  them  in 
reading  the  Law.  Subsequently,  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  who 
were  prophets,  introduced  these  expressions  also  into  the  prayer,  but  we 
should  not  on  that  account  use  [in  our  prayers]  any  other  attributes  of  God. 
The  principal  lesson  to  be  derived  from  this  passage  is  that  there  are  two 
reasons  for  our  employing  those  phrases  in  our  prayers  :  first,  they  occur  in 
the  Pentateuch  ;  secondly,  the  Prophets  introduced  them  into  the  prayer. 
Were  it  not  for  the  first  reason,  we  should  never  have  uttered  them  ;  and 
were  it  not  for  the  second  reason,  we  should  not  have  copied  them  from  the 
Pentateuch  to  recite  them  in  our  prayers ;  how  then  could  we  approve  of  the 
use  of  those  numerous  attributes  !  You  also  learn  from  this  that  we  ought 
not  to  mention  and  employ  in  our  prayers  all  the  attributes  we  find  applied 


86  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

to  God  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets  ;  for  he  does  not  say,  "  Were  it  not  that 
Moses,  our  Teacher,  said  them,  we  should  not  have  been  able  to  use  them  "  ; 
but  he  adds  another  condition — "  and  had  not  the  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue come  forward  and  established  their  use  in  the  prayer,"  because  only 
for  that  reason  are  we  allowed  to  use  them  in  our  prayers.  We  cannot  approve 
of  what  those  foolish  persons  do  who  are  extravagant  in  praise,  fluent  and 
prolix  in  the  prayers  they  compose,  and  in  the  hymns  they  make  in  the  desire 
to  approach  the  Creator.  They  describe  God  in  attributes  which  would  be 
an  offence  if  applied  to  a  human  being  ;  for  those  persons  have  no  knowledge 
of  these  great  and  important  principles,  which  are  not  accessible  to  the  ordi- 
nary intelligence  of  man.  Treating  the  Creator  as  a  familiar  object,  they 
describe  Him  and  speak  of  Him  in  any  expressions  they  think  proper  ;  they 
eloquently  continue  to  praise  Him  in  that  manner,  and  believe  that  they 
can  thereby  influence  Him  and  produce  an  effect  on  Him.  If  they  find  some 
phrase  suited  to  their  object  in  the  words  of  the  Prophets  they  are  still  more 
inclined  to  consider  that  they  are  free  to  make  use  of  such  texts — which 
should  at  least  be  explained — to  employ  them  in  their  literal  sense,  to  derive 
new  expressions  from  them,  to  form  from  them  numerous  variations,  and  to 
found  whole  compositions  on  them.  This  license  is  frequently  met  with 
in  the  compositions  of  the  singers,  preachers,  and  others  who  imagine  them- 
selves to  be  able  to  compose  a  poem.  Such  authors  write  things  which 
partly  are  real  heresy,  partly  contain  such  folly  and  absurdity  that  they 
naturally  cause  those  who  hear  them  to  laugh,  but  also  to  feel  grieved  at  the 
thought  that  such  things  can  be  uttered  in  reference  to  God.  Were  it  not 
that  I  pitied  the  authors  for  their  defects,  and  did  not  wish  to  injure  them, 
I  should  have  cited  some  passages  to  show  you  their  mistakes ;  besides,  the 
fault  of  their  compositions  is  obvious  to  all  intelligent  persons.  You  must 
consider  it,  and  think  thus  :  If  slander  and  libel  is  a  great  sin,  how  much 
greater  is  the  sin  of  those  who  speak  wdth  looseness  of  tongue  in  reference  to 
God,  and  describe  Him  by  attributes  which  are  far  below  Him ;  and  I 
declare  that  they  not  only  commit  an  ordinary  sin,  but  unconsciously  at 
least  incur  the  guilt  of  profanity  and  blasphemy.  This  applies  both  to  the 
multitude  that  listens  to  such  prayers,  and  to  the  foolish  man  that  recites 
them.  Men,  however,  who  understand  the  fault  of  such  compositions,  and, 
nevertheless,  recite  them,  may  be  classed,  according  to  my  opinion,  among 
those  to  whom  the  following  words  are  applied  :  "  And  the  children  of 
Israel  used  words  that  were  not  right  against  the  Lord  their  God  "  (2  Kings 
xvu.  9) ;  and  "  utter  error  against  the  Lord  "  (Isa.  xxxii.  6).  If  you  are  of 
those  who  regard  the  honour  of  their  Creator,  do  not  listen  in  any  way  to 
them,  much  less  utter  what  they  say,  and  still  less  compose  such  prayers. 
knowing  how  great  is  the  offence  of  one  who  hurls  aspersions  against  the 
Supreme  Being.  There  is  no  necessity  at  all  for  you  to  use  positive  attributes 
of  God  with  the  view  of  magnifying  Him  in  your  thoughts,  or  to  go  beyond 
the  limits  which  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  have  introduced  in  the 
prayers  and  in  the  blessings,  for  this  is  sufficient  for  all  purposes,  and  even 
more  than  sufficient,  as  Rabbi  Haninah  said.  Other  attributes,  such  as 
occur  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets,  may  be  uttered  when  we  meet  with  them 
in  reading  those  books ;  but  we  must  bear  in  mind  what  has  already  been 
explained,  that  they  are  either  attributes  of  God's  actions,  or  expressions 


ATTRIBUTES    OF    GOD  87 

implying  the  negation  of  the  opposite.  This  likewise  should  not  be  divulged 
to  the  multitude  ;  but  a  reflection  of  this  kind  is  fitted  for  the  few  only  who 
believe  that  the  glorification  of  God  docs  not  consist  in  uttering  that 
which  is  not  to  be  uttered,  but  in  reflecting  on  that  on  which  man  should  reflect. 

We  will  now  conclude  our  exposition  of  the  wise  words  of  R.  Haninah. 
He  does  not  employ  any  such  simile  as  :  "A  king  who  possesses  millions  of 
gold  denarii,  and  is  praised  as  having  hundreds  "  ;  for  this  would  imply  that 
God's  perfections,  although  more  perfect  than  those  ascribed  to  man 
are  still  of  the  same  kind  ;  but  this  is  not  the  case,  as  has  been  proved.  The 
excellence  of  the  simile  consists  in  the  words  :  "  who  possesses  golden 
denarii,  and  is  praised  as  having  silver  denarii  "  ;  this  implies  that  these 
attributes,  though  perfections  as  regards  ourselves,  arc  not  such  as  regards 
God  ;  in  reference  to  Him  they  would  all  be  defects,  as  is  distinctly  suggested 
in  the  remark,  "  Is  this  not  an  offence  to  Him  ?  " 

I  have  already  told  you  that  all  these  attributes,  whatever  perfection  they 
may  denote  according  to  your  idea,  imply  defects  in  reference  to  God,  if 
applied  to  Him  in  the  same  sense  as  they  are  used  in  reference  to  ourselves. 
Solomon  has  already  given  us  sufficient  instruction  on  this  subject  by  saying, 
"  For  God  is  in  heaven,  and  thou  upon  earth ;  therefore  let  thy  words  be 
few  "  (Eccles.  v.  2). 

CHAPTER   LX 

I  WILL  give  you  in  this  chapter  some  illustrations,  in  order  that  you  may 
better  understand  the  propriety  of  forming  as  many  negative  attributes  as 
possible,  and  the  impropriety  of  ascribing  to  God  any  positive  attributes.  A 
person  may  know  for  certain  that  a  "  ship  "  is  in  existence,  but  he  may  not 
know  to  what  object  that  name  is  applied,  whether  to  a  substance  or  to  an 
accident ;  a  second  person  then  learns  that  the  ship  is  not  an  accident ;  a 
third,  that  it  is  not  a  mineral ;  a  fourth,  that  it  is  not  a  plant  growing  in  the 
earth  ;  a  fifth,  that  it  is  not  a  body  whose  parts  are  joined  together  by  nature  ; 
a  sixth,  that  it  is  not  a  flat  object  like  boards  or  doors ;  a  seventh,  that  it  is 
not  a  sphere  ;  an  eighth,  that  it  is  not  pointed  ;  a  ninth,  that  it  is  not  round- 
shaped  ;  nor  equilateral ;  a  tenth,  that  it  is  not  solid.  It  is  clear  that  this 
tenth  person  has  almost  arrived  at  the  correct  notion  of  a  "  ship  "  by  the 
foregoing  negative  attributes,  as  if  he  had  exactly  the  same  notion  as  those 
have  who  imagine  it  to  be  a  wooden  substance  which  is  hollow,  long,  and 
composed  of  many  pieces  of  wood,  that  is  to  say,  who  know  it  by  positive 
attributes.  Of  the  other  persons  in  our  illustration,  each  one  is  more  remote 
from  the  correct  notion  of  a  ship  than  the  next  mentioned,  so  that  the  first 
knows  nothing  about  it  but  the  name.  In  the  same  manner  you  will  come 
nearer  to  the  knowledge  and  comprehension  of  God  by  the  negative  attri- 
butes. But  you  must  be  careful,  in  what  you  negative,  to  negative  by  proof, 
not  by  mere  words,  for  each  time  you  ascertain  by  proof  that  a  certain  thing, 
believed  to  exist  in  the  Creator,  must  be  negatived,  you  have  undoubtedly 
come  one  step  nearer  to  the  knowledge  of  God. 

It  is  in  this  senst  that  some  men  come  very  near  to  God,  and  others  remain 
exceedingly  remote  from  Him,  not  in  the  sense  of  those  who  are  deprived  of 
vision,  and  believe  that  God  occupies  a  place,  which  man  can  physically 


S8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

approach  or  from  which  he  can  recede.     Examine  this  well,  know  it,  and  be 
content  with  it.       The  way  which  will  bring  you  nearer  to  God  has  been 
clearly  shown  to  you  ;  walk'in  it,  if  you  have  the  desire.     On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  a  great  danger  in  applying  positive  attributes  to  God.     For  it  has 
been  shown  that  every  perfection  we  could  imagine,  even  if  existing  in  God 
in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  those  who  assert  the  existence  of  attributes, 
would  in  reality  not  be  of  the  same  kind  as  that  imagined  by  us,  but  would 
only  be  called  by  the  same  name,  according  to  our  explanation  ;  it  would  in 
fact  amount  to  a  negation.     Suppose,  e.g.,  you  say  He  has  knowledge,  and 
that  knowledge,  which  admits  of  no  change  and  of  no  plurality,  embraces 
many  changeable  things;    His  knowledge  remains  unaltered,  while  new 
things  are  constantly  formed,  and  His  knowledge  of  a  thing  before  it  exists, 
while  it  exists,  and  when  it  has  ceased  to  exist,  is  the  same  without  the  least 
change  :    you  would  thereby  declare  that  His  knowledge  is   not    like  ours ; 
and  similarly  that  His  existence  is  not  like  ours.     You  thus  necessarily  arrive 
at  some  negation,  without  obtaining  a  true  conception  of  an  essential  attri- 
bute ;  on  the  contrary,  you  are  led  to  assume  that  there  is  a  plurality  in  God, 
and  to  believe  that  He,  though  one  essence,  has  several  unknown  attributes. 
For  if  you  intend  to  affirm  them,  you  cannot  compare  them  v«th  those 
attributes  known  by  us,  and  they  are  consequently  not  of  the  same  kind. 
You  are,  as  it  were,  brought  by  the  belief  in  the  reality  of  the  attributes,  to 
say  that  God  is  one  subject  of  which  several  things  are  predicated  ;   though 
the  subject  is  not  like  ordinary  subjects,  and  the  predicates  are  not  like  ordi- 
nary predicates.     This  belief  would  ultimately  lead  us  to  associate    other 
things  with  God,  and  not  to  believe  that  He  is  One.     For  of  every   subject 
certain  things  can  undoubtedly  be  predicated,  and    although  in  reality  sub- 
ject and  predicate  are  combined  in  one  thing,  by  the  actual  definition  they 
consist  of  two  elements,  the  notion  contained  in  the    subject  not  being  the 
same  as  that  contained  in  the  predicate.     In  the  course  of  this  treatise  it  will 
be  proved  to  you  that  God  cannot  be  a  compound,  and  that  He  is  simple  in 
the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 

I  do  not  merely  declare  that  he  who  affirms  attributes  of  God  has  not  suffi- 
cient knovvlenge  concerning  the  Creator,  admits  some  association  with  God, 
or  conceives  Him  to  be  different  from  what  He  is ;  but  I  say  that  he  uncon- 
sciously loses  his  belief  in  God.     For  he  whose  knowledge  concerning  a  thing 
is  insufficient,  understands  one  part  of  it  while  he  is  ignorant  of  the  other, 
as,  e.g.,  a  person  who  knows  that  man  possesses  life,  but  does  not  know  that 
man  possesses  understanding ;   but  in  reference  to  God,  in  whose  real  exist- 
ence there  is  no  plurality,  it  is  impossible  that  one  thing  should  be  known, 
and  another  unknown.     Similarly  he  who  associates  an  object  with  [the  pro- 
perties of]  another  object,  conceives  a  true  and  correct  notion  of  the  one 
object,  and  applies  that  notion  also  to  the  other ;    while  those  who  admit 
the  attributes  of  God,  do  not  consider  them  as  identical  with  His  essence, 
but  as  extraneous  elements.     Again,  he  who  conceives  an  incorrect  notion 
of  an  object,  must  necessarily  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  object  to  some  ex- 
tent ;  he,  however,  who  says  that  taste  belongs  to  the  category  of  quantity  has 
not,  according  to  my  opinion,  an  incorrect  notion  of  taste,  but  is  entirely 
ignornnt  of  its  nature,  for  he  docs  not  know  to  what  object  the  term  "  taste  " 
is  to  be  applied. — This  is  a  very  diflicult  subject ;  consider  it  well. 


ATTRIBUTES    OF   GOD  89 

According  to  this  explanation  you  will  understand,  that  those  who  do  not 
recognize,  in  reference  to  God,  the  negation  of  things,  which  others  negative 
by  clear  proof,  are  deficient  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  are  remote  from 
comprehending  Him.  Consequently,  the  smaller  the  number  of  things  is 
which  a  person  can  negative  in  relation  to  God,  the  less  he  knows  of  Him, 
as  has  been  explained  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  ;  but  the  man  who 
affirms  an  attribute  of  God,  knows  nothing  but  the  same  ;  for  the  object  to 
which,  in  his  imagination,  he  applies  that  name,  does  not  exist ;  it  is  a  mere 
fiction  and  invention,  as  if  he  applied  that  name  to  a  non-existing  being, 
for  there  is,  in  reality,  no  such  object.  E.g.,  some  one  has  heard  of  the  ele- 
phant, and  knows  that  it  is  an  animal,  and  wishes  to  know  its  form  and  nature. 
A  person,  who  is  either  misled  or  misleading,  tells  him  it  is  an  animal  with  one 
leg,  three  wings,  lives  in  the  depth  of  the  sea,  has  a  transparent  body  ;  its 
face  is  wide  like  that  of  a  man,  has  the  same  form  and  shape,  speaks  like  a 
man,  flies  sometimes  in  the  air,  and  sometimes  swims  like  a  fish.  I  should 
not  say,  that  he  described  the  elephant  incorrectly,  or  that  he  has  an  in- 
sufficient knowledge  of  the  elephant,  but  I  would  say  that  the  thing  thus 
described  is  an  invention  and  fiction,  and  that  in  reality  there  exists  nothing 
like  it ;  it  is  a  non-existing  being,  called  by  the  name  of  a  really  existing 
being,  and  like  the  griffin,  the  centaur,  and  similar  imaginary  combinations 
for  which  simple  and  compound  names  have  been  borrowed  from  real  things. 
The  present  case  is  analogous ;  namely,  God,  praised  be  His  name,  exists, 
and  His  existence  has  been  proved  to  be  absolute  and  perfectly  simple,  as  I 
shall  explain.  If  such  a  simple,  absolutely  existing  essence  were  said  to  have 
attributes,  as  has  been  contended,  and  were  combined  with  extraneous 
elements,  it  would  in  no  way  be  an  existing  thing,  as  has  been  proved  by  us ; 
and  when  we  say  that  that  essence,  which  is  called  "  God,"  is  a  substance 
with  many  properties  by  which  it  can  be  described,  we  apply  that  name  to 
an  object  which  does  not  at  all  exist.  Consider,  therefore,  what  are  the 
consequences  of  affirming  attributes  to  God  !  As  to  those  attributes  of  God 
which  occur  in  the  Pentateuch,  or  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets,  we  must 
assume  that  they  are  exclusively  employed,  as  has  been  stated  by  us,  to  con- 
vey to  us  some  notion  of  the  perfections  of  the  Creator,  or  to  express  qualities 
of  actions  emanating  from  Him. 

CHAPTER    LXI 

It  is  well  known  that  all  the  names  of  God  occurring  in  Scripture  are  de- 
rived from  His  actions,  except  one,  namely,  the  Tetragrammaton,  which 
consists  of  the  letters  yod,  he,  van  and  he.  This  name  is  applied  exclusively 
to  God,  and  is  on  that  account  called  Shem  ha-meforash,  "  The  nomen  pro- 
prium."  It  is  the  distinct  and  exclusive  designation  of  the  Divine  Being  ; 
whilst  His  other  names  are  common  nouns,  and  are  derived  from  actions, 
to  which  some  of  our  own  are  similar,  as  we  have  already  explained.  Even 
the  name  Jdonay,  "  Lord,"  which  has  been  substituted  for  the  Tetragram- 
maton, is  derived  from  the  appellative  "  lord  "  ;  comp.  "  The  man  who  is 
the  lord  (adone)  of  the  land  spake  roughly  to  us  "  (Gen.  xliii.  30).  The 
difference  between  Jdoni,  "  my  lord,"  (with  ^z>^^  under  the  nun),ox  Adonay 
with  kameTi),  is  similar  to  the  diflterence  between  Sari,  "  my  prince,"  and 


gb  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Saraf,  Abraham's  wife  {tb.  xvi.  l),  the  latter  form  denoting  majesty  and 
distinction.  An  angel  is  also  addressed  as  "  Adonay  "  ;  e.g.,  ''Adonay  (My 
lord),  pass  not  away,  I  pray  thee  "  {ib.  xviii.  3).  I  have  restricted  my  ex- 
planation to  the  term  Adonay,  the  substitute  for  the  Tetragrammaton, 
because  it  is  more  commonly  applied  to  God  than  any  of  the  other  names 
which  are  in  frequent  use,  like  dayyan,  "  judge,"  j/j^^c^ay,  "  almighty," 
Zaddik,  "  righteous,"  hannun,  "  gracious,"  rahum  "  merciful,"  and  elohim 
"  chief  "  ;  all  these  terms  are  unquestionably  appellations  and  derivatives. 
The  derivation  of  the  name,  consisting  of  yod,  he,  vau,  and  he,  is  not  positively 
known,  the  word  having  no  additional  signification.  This  sacred  name, 
which,  as  you  know,  was  not  pronounced  except  in  the  sanctuary  by  the 
appointed  pripsts,  when  they  gave  the  sacerdotal  blessing,  and  by  the  high 
priest  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  undoubtedly  denotes  something  wliich  is 
peculiar  to  God,  and  is  not  found  in  any  other  being.  It  is  possible  that  in 
the  Hebrew  language,  of  which  we  have  now  but  a  slight  knowledge,  the 
Tetragrammaton,  in  the  way  it  was  pronounced,  conveyed  the  meaning  of 
"  absolute  existence."  In  short,  the  majesty  of  the  name  and  the  great  dread 
of  uttering  it,  are  connected  with  the  fact  that  it  denotes  God  Himself, 
without  including  in  its  meaning  any  names  of  the  things  created  by  Him. 
Thus  our  Sages  say  :  "  '  My  name  '  (Num.  vi.  27)  means  the  name  which  is 
peculiar  to  Me."  All  other  names  of  God  have  reference  to  qualities,  and 
do  not  signify  a  simple  substance,  but  a  substance  with  attributes,  they  being 
derivatives.  On  that  account  it  is  believed  that  they  imply  the  presence  of  a 
plurality  in  God,  I  mean  to  say,  the  presence  of  attributes,  that  is,  of  some 
extraneous  element  superadded  to  His  essence.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  all 
derivative  names ;  they  imply  the  presence  of  some  attribute  and  its  sub- 
stratum, though  this  be  not  distinctly  named.  As,  however,  it  has  been 
proved,  that  God  is  not  a  substratum  capable  of  attributes,  we  are  con- 
vinced that  those  appellatives  when  employed  as  names  of  God,  only  indicate 
the  relation  of  certain  actions  to  Him,  or  they  convey  to  us  some  notion  of 
His  perfection. 

Hence  R.  Haninah  would  have  objected  to  the  expression  "  the  great,  the 
mighty,  and  the  tremendous,"  had  it  not  been  for  the  two  reasons  men- 
tioned by  him  ;  because  such  expressions  lead  men  to  think  that  the  attri- 
butes are  essential,  i.e.,  they  are  perfections  actually  present  in  God.  The 
frequent  use  of  names  of  God  derived  from  actions,  led  to  the  belief  that  He 
had  as  many  [essential]  attributes  as  there  were  actions  from  which  the  names 
were  derived.  The  following  promise  was  therefore  made,  implying  that 
mankind  will  at  a  certain  future  time  understand  this  subject,  and  be  free 
from  the  error  it  involves  :  "  In  that  day  will  the  Lord  be  One,  and  His 
name  One  "  (Zech.  xiv.  9).  The  meaning  of  this  prophecy  is  this :  He 
being  One,  will  then  be  called  by  one  name,  which  will  indicate  the  essence 
of  God  ;  but  it  does  not  mean  that  His  sole  name  will  be  a  derivative  [viz., 
"  One "].  In  the  Pirke  Rabbi  Eliezer  (chap,  iii.)  occurs  the  following 
passage  :  "  Before  the  universe  was  created,  there  was  only  the  Almighty 
and  His  name."  Observe  how  clearly  the  author  states  that  all  these  appel- 
latives employed  as  names  of  God  came  into  existence  after  the  Creation. 
This  is  true  ;  for  they  all  refer  to  actions  manifested  in  the  Universe.  If, 
however,  you  consider  His  essence  as  separate  and  as  abstracted  from  all 


THE    NAMES    OF    GOD  91 

actions,  you  will  not  describe  it  by  an  appellative,  but  by  a  proper  noun, 
which  exclusively  indicates  that  essence.  Every  other  name  of  God  is  a 
derivative,  only  the  Tetragrammaton  is  a  real  novien  proprium,  and  must 
not  be  considered  from  any  other  point  of  view.  You  must  beware  of 
sharing  the  error  of  those  who  write  amulets  (kameot).  Whatever  you 
hear  from  them,  or  read  in  their  works,  especially  in  reference  to  the  names 
which  they  form  by  combination,  is  utterly  senseless ;  they  call  these  com- 
binations shemot  (names)  and  believe  that  their  pronunciation  demands 
sanctification  and  purification,  and  that  by  using  them  they  are  enabled  to 
work  miracles.  Rational  persons  ought  not  to  hsten  to  such  men,  nor  in 
any  way  believe  their  assertions.  No  other  name  is  called  shetn  ha-mcjorash 
except  this  Tetragrammaton,  which  is  written,  but  is  not  pronounced 
according  to  its  letters.  The  words,  "  Thus  shall  ye  bless  the  children  of 
Israel "  (Num.  vi.  23)  are  interpreted  in  Siphri  as  follows :  "  '  7hus,^  in  the  holy 
language  ;  again  '  thus,^  with  the  Shem  ha-meforash.''''  The  following  remark 
is  also  found  there  :  "  In  the  sanctuary  [the  name  of  God  is  pronounced] 
as  it  is  spelt,  but  elsewhere  by  its  substitutes."  In  the  Talmud,  the  follow- 
ing passage  occurs  :  "  '  Thus,^  i.e.,  with  the  shem  ha-mejorash. — You 
say  [that  the  priests,  when  blessing  the  people,  had  to  pronounce]  the  shem 
ha-meforash  ;  this  was  perhaps  not  the  case,  and  they  may  have  used  other 
names  instead. — We  infer  it  from  the  words :  '  And  they  shall  put  My  name  ' 
(Num.  vi.  27),  i.e.,  My  name,  which  is  peculiar  to  Me."  It  has  thus  been 
shown  that  the  shem  ha-mejorash  (the  proper  name  of  God)  is  the  Tetra- 
grammaton, and  that  this  is  the  only  name  which  indicates  nothing  but  His 
essence,  and  therefore  our  Sages  in  referring  to  this  sacred  term  said  " '  My 
name  '  means  the  one  which  is  peculiar  to  Me  alone." 

In  the  next  chapter  I  will  explain  the  circumstances  which  brought  men 
to  a  belief  in  the  power  of  Shemot  (names  of  God)  ;  I  will  point  out  the 
main  subject  of  discussion,  and  lay  open  to  you  its  mystery,  and  then  not  any 
doubt  will  be  left  in  your  mind,  unless  you  prefer  to  be  misguided. 

CHAPTER   LXII 

We  were  commanded  that,  in  the  sacerdotal  blessing,  the  name  of  the  Lord 
should  be  pronounced  as  it  is  written  in  the  form  of  the  Tetragrammaton, 
the  shem  ha-meforash.  It  was  not  known  to  every  one  how  the  name  was  to 
be  pronounced,  what  vowels  were  to  be  given  to  each  consonant,  and  whether 
some  of  the  letters  capable  of  redupHcation  should  receive  a  dagesh.  Wise 
men  successively  transmitted  the  pronunciation  of  the  name  ;  it  occurred 
only  once  in  seven  years  that  the  pronunciation  was  communicated  to  a 
distinguished  disciple.  I  must,  however,  add  that  the  statement,  "The 
wise  men  communicated  the  Tetragrammaton  to  their  children  and  their 
disciples  once  in  seven  years,"  does  not  only  refer  to  the  pronunciation  but 
also  to  its  meaning,  because  of  which  the  Tetragrammaton  was  made  a 
nomen  proprium  of  God,  and  which  includes  certain  metaphysical  principles. 
Our  Sages  knew  in  addition  a  name  of  God  which  consisted  of  twelve 
letters,  inferior  in  sanctity  to  the  Tetragrammaton.  I  believe  that  this  was 
not  a  single  noun,  but  consisted  of  two  or  three  words,  the  sum  of  their 
letters  being  twelve,  and  that  these  words  were  used  by  our  Sages  as  a  sub- 


92  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

stitute  for  the  Tetragrammaton,  whenever  they  met  with  it  in  the  course  of 
their  reading  the  Scriptures,  in  the  same  manner  as  we  at  present  substitute 
for  it  dUpk,  dalc-th,  etc.  [i.e.,  Adonay,  "  the  Lord  "].  There  is  no  doubt  that 
this  name  also,  consisting  of  twelve  letters,  was  in  this  sense  more  distinctive 
than  the  name  Adonay  :  it  was  never  withheld  from  any  of  the  students  ; 
whoever  wished  to  learn  it,  had  the  opportunity  given  to  him  without  any 
reserve  :  not  so  the  Tetragrammaton  ;  those  who  knew  it  did  not  communi- 
cate it  except  to  a  son  or  a  disciple,  once  in  seven  years,  When,  however, 
unprincipled  men  had  become  acquainted  with  that  name  which  consists  of 
twelve  letters  and  in  consequence  had  become  corrupt  in  faith — as  is  some- 
times the  case  when  persons  with  imperfect  knowledge  become  aware  that 
a  thing  is  not  such  as  they  had  imagined — the  Sages  concealed  also  that  name, 
and  onlv  communicated  it  to  the  worthiest  among  the  priests,  that  they 
should  pronounce  it  when  they  blessed  the  people  in  the  Temple  ;  for  the 
Tetragrammeton  was  then  no  longer  uttered  in  the  sanctuary  on  account  of 
the  corruption  of  the  people.  There  is  a  tradition,  that  with  the  death  of 
Simeon  the  Just,  his  brother  priests  discontinued  the  pronunciation  of  the 
Tetragrammaton  in  the  blessing  ;  they  used,  instead,  this  name  of  twelve 
letters.  It  is  further  stated,  that  at  first  the  name  of  twelve  letters  was 
communicated  to  every  man ;  but  when  the  number  of  impious  men  in- 
creased it  was  only  entrusted  to  the  worthiest  among  the  priests,  whose  voice, 
in  pronouncing  it,  was  drowned  amid  the  singing  of  their  brother  priests. 
Rabbi  Tarphon  said,  "  Once  I  followed  my  grandfather  to  the  dais  [where  the 
blessing  was  pronounced] ;  I  inclined  my  ear  to  listen  to  a  priest  [who 
pronounced  the  name],  and  noticed  that  his  voice  was  drowned  amid  the 
singing  of  his  brother  priests." 

There  was  also  a  name  of  forty-two  letters  known  among  them.  Every 
intelligent  person  knows  that  one  word  of  forty-two  letters  is  impossible. 
But  it  was  a  phrase  of  several  words  which  had  together  forty-two  letters. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  words  had  such  a  meaning  as  to  convey  a  correct 
notion  of  the  essence  of  God,  in  the  way  we  have  stated.  This  phrase  of  so 
many  letters  is  called  a  name  because,  like  other  proper  nouns,  they  repre- 
sent one  single  object,  and  several  words  have  been  employed  in  order  to 
explain  more  clearly  the  idea  which  the  name  represents ;  for  an  idea  can 
more  easily  be  comprehended  if  expressed  in  many  words.  Mark  this  and 
observe  now  that  the  instruction  in  regard  to  the  names  of  God  extended  to 
the  signification  of  each  of  those  names,  and  did  not  confine  itself  to  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  single  letters  which,  in  themselves,  are  destitute  of  an  idea. 
Skem  ha-meforash  applied  neither  to  the  name  of  forty-two  letters  nor  to  that 
of  twelve,  but  only  to  the  Tetragrammaton,  the  proper  name  of  God,  as 
we  have  explained.  Those  two  names  must  have  included  some  metaphy- 
sical ideas.  It  can  be  proved  that  one  of  them  conveyed  profound  know- 
ledge, from  the  following  rule  laid  down  by  our  Sages  :  "  The  name  of 
forty-two  letters  is  exceedingly  holy  ;  it  can  only  be  entrusted  to  him  who 
is  modest,  in  the  midway  of  life,  not  easily  provoked  to  anger,  temperate, 
gentle,  and  who  speaks  kindly  to  his  fellow  men.  He  who  understands  it, 
is  cautious  with  it,  and  keeps  it  in  purity,  is  loved  above  and  is  liked  here 
below  ;  he  is  respected  by  his  fellow  men  ;  his  learning  remaineth  with  him, 
and  he  enjoys  both  this  world  and  the  world  to  come."     So  far  in  the  Tal- 


THE    NAMES    OF    GOD  93 

mud.  How  grievously  has  this  passage  been  misunderstood  !  Many  be- 
lieve that  the  forty-two  letters  are  merely  to  be  pronounced  mechanically  ; 
that  by  knowledge  of  these,  without  any  further  interpretation,  they  can 
attain  to  these  exalted  ends,  although  it  is  stated  that  he  who  desires  to 
obtain  a  knowledge  of  that  name  must  be  trained  in  the  virtues  named  be- 
fore, and  go  through  all  the  great  preparations  which  are  mentioned  in  that 
passage.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  evident  that  all  this  preparation  aims  at  a 
knowledge  of  Metaphysics,  and  includes  ideas  which  constitute  the  "  secrets 
of  the  Law,"  as  we  have  explained  (chap.  xxxv.).  In  works  on  Metaphysics 
it  has  been  shown  that  such  knowledge,  i.e.,  the  perception  of  the  active 
intellect,  can  never  be  forgotten  ;  and  this  is  meant  by  the  phrase  "  his  learn- 
ing remaineth  with  him." 

When  bad  and  foolish  men  were  reading  such  passages,  they  considered 
them  to  be  a  support  of  their  false  pretensions  and  of  their  assertion  that  they 
could,  by  means  of  an  arbitrary  combination  of  letters,  form  a  shem  ("  a 
name  ")  which  would  act  and  operate  miraculously  when  written  or  spoken 
in  a  certain  particular  way.  Such  fictions,  originally  invented  by  foolish 
men,  were  in  the  course  of  time  committed  to  writing,  and  came  into  the 
hands  of  good  but  weak-minded  and  ignorant  persons  who  were  unable  to 
discriminate  between  truth  and  falsehood,  and  made  a  secret  of  these  shemot 
(names).  When  after  the  death  of  such  persons  those  writings  were  dis- 
covered among  their  papers,  it  was  believed  that  they  contained  truths ; 
for,  "  The  simple  believeth  every  word  "  (Prov.  xiv,  15). 

We  have  already  gone  too  far  away  from  our  interesting  subject  and  re- 
condite inquiry,  endeavouring  to  refute  a  perverse  notion,  the  absurdity  of 
which  every  one  must  perceive  who  gives  a  thought  to  the  subject.  We 
have,  however,  been  compelled  to  mention  it,  in  treating  of  the  divine  names, 
their  meanings,  and  the  opinions  commonly  held  concerning  them.  We 
shall  now  return  to  our  theme.  Having  shown  that  all  names  of  God,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Tetragrammaton  {Shem  ha-meforash),  are  appellatives, 
we  must  now,  in  a  separate  chapter,  speak  on  the  phrase  Ehyeh  asher  Ehyeh, 
(Exod.  iii.  14),  because  it  is  connected  with  the  difhcult  subject  under 
discussion,  namely,  the  inadmissibility  of  divine  attributes. 

CHAPTER  LXni 

Before  approaching  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  we  will  first  consider  the 
words  of  Moses,  "  And  they  shall  say  unto  me.  What  is  His  name  .?  what  shall 
I  say  unto  them  ?  "  (Exod.  iii.  13),  How  far  was  this  question,  anticipated 
by  Moses,  appropriate,  and  how  far  was  he  justified  in  seeking  to  be  prepared 
with  the  answer  ?  Moses  was  correct  in  declaring,  "  But,  behold,  they  will 
not  believe  me,  for  they  will  say.  The  Lord  hath  not  appeared  unto  thee  " 
{lb.  iv.  l)  ;  for  any  man  claiming  the  authority  of  a  prophet  must  expect  to 
meet  with  such  an  objection  so  long  as  he  has  not  given  a  proof  of  his  mission. 
Again,  if  the  question,  as  appears  at  first  sight,  referred  only  to  the  name, 
as  a  mere  utterance  of  the  lips,  the  following  dilemma  would  present  itself : 
either  the  Israelites  knew  the  name,  or  they  had  never  heard  it  ;  if  the  name 
was  known  to  them,  they  would  perceive  in  it  no  argument  in  favour  of  the 
mission  of  Moses,  his  knowledge  and  their  knowledge  of  the  divine  name 


94  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

being  the  same.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  had  never  heard  it  mentioned, 
and  if  the  knowledge  of  it  was  to  prove  the  mission  of  Moses,  what  evidence 
would  they  have  that  this  was  really  the  name  of  God  ?  Moreover,  after 
God  had  made  known  that  name  to  Moses,  and  had  told  him,  "  Go  and  gather 
the  elders  of  Israel,  .  .  .  and  they  shall  hearken  to  thy  voice"  (tb.  xvi.  l8), 
he  replied,  "  Behold,  they  will  not  believe  me  nor  hearken  unto  my  voice," 
although  God  had  told  him,  "  And  they  will  hearken  to  thy  voice  "  ;  where- 
upon God  answered,  "  What  is  that  in  thine  hand  ?  "  and  he  said,  "  A  rod  " 
{ib.  iv.  2).  In  order  to  obviate  this  dilemma,  you  must  understand  what  I 
am  about  to  tell  you.  You  know  how  widespread  were  in  those  days  the 
opinions  of  the  Sabeans ;  all  men,  except  a  few  individuals,  were  idolaters, 
that  is  to  say,  they  believed  in  spirits,  in  man's  power  to  direct  the  influences 
of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  in  the  efTect  of  talismans.  Any  one  who  in 
those  days  laid  claim  to  authority,  based  it  either,  like  Abraham,  on  the  fact 
that,  by  reasoning  and  by  proof  he  had  been  convinced  of  the  existence  of  a 
Being  who  rules  the  whole  Universe,  or  that  some  spiritual  power  was  con- 
ferred upon  him  by  a  star,  by  an  angel,  or  by  a  similar  agency ;  but  no  one 
could  establish  his  claim  on  prophecy,  that  is  to  say,  on  the  fact  that  God 
had  spoken  to  him,  or  had  entrusted  a  mission  to  him  ;  before  the  days  of 
Moses  no  such  assertion  had  ever  been  made.  You  must  not  be  misled  by 
the  statements  that  God  spoke  to  the  Patriarchs,  or  that  He  had  appeared 
to  them.  For  you  do  not  find  any  mention  of  a  prophecy  which  appealed 
to  others,  or  which  directed  them.  Abraham,  Isaac,  or  Jacob,  or  any  other 
person  before  them  did  not  tell  the  people,  "  God  said  unto  me,  you  shall  do 
this  thing,  or  you  shall  not  do  that  thing."  or  "  God  has  sent  me  to  you." 
Far  from  it !  for  God  spoke  to  them  on  nothing  but  of  what  especially  con- 
cerned them,  i.e.,  He  communicated  to  them  things  relating  to  their  per- 
fection, directed  them  in  what  they  should  do,  and  foretold  them  what  the 
condition  of  their  descendants  would  be ;  nothing  beyond  this.  They 
guided  their  fellow-men  by  means  of  argument  and  instruction,  as  is  im- 
plied, according  to  the  interpretation  generally  received  amongst  us,  in  the 
words  "  and  the  souls  that  they  had  gotten  in  Haran  "  (Gen.  xii.  5).  When 
God  appeared  to  our  Teacher  Moses,  and  commanded  him  to  address  the 
people  and  to  bring  them  the  message,  Moses  replied  that  he  might  first  be 
asked  to  prove  the  existence  of  God  in  the  Universe,  and  that  only  after  doing 
so  he  would  be  able  to  announce  to  them  that  God  had  sent  him.  For  all 
men,  with  few  exceptions,  were  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  God  ;  their 
highest  thoughts  did  not  extend  beyond  the  heavenly  sphere,  its  forms  or 
its  influences.  They  could  not  yet  emancipate  themselves  from  sensation, 
and  had  not  yet  attained  to  any  intellectual  perfection.  Then  God  taught 
Moses  how  to  teach  them,  and  how  to  establish  amongst  them  the  belief  in 
the  existence  of  Himself,  namely,  by  saying  Ehyeh  asher  Ehyeh,  a  name  derived 
from  the  verb  hayah  in  the  sense  of  "  existing,"  for  the  verb  hayah  denotes 
"  to  be,"  and  in  Hebrew  no  difference  is  made  between  the  verbs  "  to  be  " 
and  "  to  exist."  The  principal  point  in  this  phrase  is  that  the  same  word 
which  denotes  "  existence,"  is  repeated  as  an  attribute.  The  word  asher, 
"  that,"  corresponds  to  the  Arabic  illadi  and  illati,  and  is  an  incomplete 
noun  that  must  be  completed  by  another  noun  ;  it  may  be  considered  as  the 
subject  of  the  predicate  which  follows.     The  first  noun  which  is  to  be  de- 


THE    NAMES    OF    GOD  95 

scribed  is  ehyeh  ;  the  second,  by  which  the  first  is  described,  is  likewise  ehyeh, 
the  identical  word,  as  if  to  show  that  the  object  which  is  to  be  described  and 
the  attribute  by  which  it  is  described  are  in  this  case  necessarily  identical. 
This  is,  therefore,  the  expression  of  the  idea  that  God  exists,  but  not  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  the  term  ;  or,  in  other  words,  He  is  "  the  existing  Being 
which  is  the  the  existing  Being,"  that  is  to  say,  the  Being  whose  existence  is 
absolute.  The  proof  which  he  was  to  give  consisted  in  demonstrating  that 
there  is  a  Being  of  absolute  existence,  that  has  never  been  and  never  will  be 
without  existence.  This  I  wall  clearly  prove  (II.  Introd.  Prop.  20  and 
chap.  i.). 

God  thus  showed  Moses  the  proofs  by  which  His  existence   would    be 
firmly  established  among  the  wise  men  of  His  people.     Therefore  the  ex- 
planation of  the  name  is  followed  by  the  words,  "  Go,  gather  the  elders  of 
Israel,"  and    by  the    assurance    that  the    elders  would  understand    what 
God  had  shown  to  him,  and  would  accept  it,  as   is  stated  in  the  words, 
"  And  they  will  hearken  to  thy  voice."     Then  Moses  replied  as  follows  : 
They  will  accept  the  doctrine  that  God  exists  convinced  by  these  intelligible 
proofs.     But,  said  Moses,  by  what  means  shall  I  be  able  to  show  that  this  ex- 
isting God  has  sent  me  ?     Thereupon  God  gave  him  the  sign.     We  have 
thus  shown  that  the  question,  "  What  is  His  name  ?  "  means  "  Who  is  that 
Being,  which  according  to  thy  belief  has  sent  thee  f  "     The  sentence,  "  What 
is  his  name  "  (instead  of.  Who  is  He),  has  here  been  used  as  a  tribute  of 
praise  and  homage,  as  though  it  had  been  said.  Nobody  can  be  ignorant  of 
Thy  essence  and  of  Thy  real  existence ;   if,  nevertheless,  I  ask  what  is  Thy 
name,  I  mean.  What  idea  is  to  be  expressed  by  the  name  ?       (IVIoses  con- 
sidered it  inappropriate  to  say  to  God  that  any  person  was  ignorant  of  God's 
existence,  and  therefore  described  the  Israelites  as  ignorant  of  God's  name, 
not  as  ignorant  of  Him  who  was   called  by  that  name.) — The   name   Jah 
likewise  implies  eternal  existence.     Shadday,  however,  is  derived  from  day, 
"  enough  "  ;  comp.  "  for  the  stuff  they  had  was  sufficient  "  {dayyam,  Exod. 
xxxvi.  7)  ;    the  shin  is  equal  to  asher,  "  which,"  as  in  she-kebar,  "  which 
already  "  (Eccles.  ii.  16).     The  name  Shadday,  therefore,  signifies  "  he  who 
is  sufficient  "  ;  that  is  to  say.  He  does  not  require  any  other  being  for  effecting 
the  existence  of  what  He  created,  or  its  conservation  :    His  existence  is  suffi- 
cient for  that.  In  a  similar  manner  the  name  hasin  implies  "  strength  "  ;  comp. 
"  he  was  strong  (hason)  as  the  oaks  "  (Amos  ii.  9).     The  same  is  the  case  with 
"  rock,"  which  is  a  homonym,  as  we  have  explained  (chap.  xvi.).     It  is,  there- 
fore, clear  that  all  these  names  of  God  are  appellatives,  or  are  applied  to  God 
by  way  of  homonymy,  like  zur  and  others,  the  only  exception    being  the 
tetragrammaton,  the  Shem  ha-meforash  (the  nomen  proprium  of  God),  which 
is  not  an  appellative  ;    it  does  not  denote  any  attribute  of  God,  nor  does  it 
imply  anything  except  His  existence.     Absolute  existence  includes  the  idea 
of  eternity,  i.e.,  the  necessity  of  existence.     Note  well  the  result  at  which 
we  have  arrived  in  this  chapter. 

CHAPTER   LXIV 

Know  that  in  some  instances  by  the  phrase  "  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  nothing 
but  the  name  alone  is  to  be  understood  ;    comp.  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  the 

K 


96  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  "  (Exod.  xx.  7) ;    "  And  he  that  blas- 
phemeth  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (Lev.  xxiv.  16).     This  occurs  in  numerous 
other  passages.     In  other  instances  it  means  the  essence  and  reality  of  God 
Himself,  as  in  the  phrase  "  They  shall  say  to  me,  What  is  his  name  "  ?  Some- 
times it' stands  for  "  the  word  of  God,"  so  that  "  the  name  of  God,"  "  the 
word  of  God,"  and  "  the  command  of  God,"  are  identical  phrases ;    comp. 
"  for  my  name  is  in  him  "  (Exod.  xxiii.  21),  that  is.  My  word  or  My  com- 
mand is  in  him  ;    i.e.,  he  is  the  instrument  of  My  desire  and  will.     I  shall 
e.xplain  this  fully  in  treating  of  the  homonymity  of  the  term  "  angel  "  (II. 
chap.  vi.  and  xxxiv.).— The  same  is  the  case  with  "  The  glory  of  the  Lord." 
The  phrase  sometimes  signifies  "  the  material  light,"  which  God  caused  to 
rest  on  a  certain  place  in  order  to  show  the   distinction  of  that  place,  e.g., 
"  And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  {kel>od  adonay)  abode  upon  Mount  Sinai  and  the 
cloud  covered  it "  (Exod.  xxiv.  16)  :   "  And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the 
tabernacle  "  {ib.  xl.  35).    Sometimes  the  essence,  the  reality  of  God  is  meant 
by  that  expression,  as  in  the  words  of  Moses,  "  Show  me  thy  glory  "  {ib.  xxxiii. 
18),  to  which  the  reply  was  given,  "  For  no  man  shall  see  me  and  live" 
(t^.  XX.).     This  shows  that  the  glory  of  the  Lord  in  this  instance  is  the  same 
as  He  Himself,  and  that  "  Thy  glory  "  has  been  substituted  for  "  Thyself," 
as  a  tribute  of  homage  ;    an  explanation  which  we  also  gave  of  the  words, 
"  And  they  shall  say  unto  me.  What  is  his  name  ?  "     Sometimes  the  term 
"  glory  "  denotes  the  glorification  of  the  Lord  by  man  or  by  any  other  being. 
For  the  true  glorification  of  the  Lord  consists  in  the  comprehension  of  His 
greatness,  and  all  who  comprehend  His  greatness  and  perfection,  glorify 
Him  according  to  their  capacity,  vdth  this  difference,  that  man  alone  mag- 
nifies God  in  words,  expressive  of  what  he  has  received  in  his  mind,  and  what 
he  desires  to  communicate  to  others.     Things  not  endowed  with  compre- 
hension, as  e.g.,  minerals,  may  also  be  considered  as  glorifying  the  Lord,  for 
by  their  natural  properties  they  testify  to  the  omnipotence  and  wisdom  of 
their  Creator,  and  cause  him  who  examines  them  to  praise  God,  by  means 
of  speech  or  without  the  use  of  words,  if  the  power  of  speech  be  wanting. 
In  Hebrew  this  licence  has  been  extended  still  further,  and  the  use  of  the 
verb  "  to  speak  "  has  been  admitted  as  applicable  in  such  a  case  ;    things 
which  have  no  comprehension  are  therefore  said  to  give  utterance  to  praise, 
e.g.,  "  All  my  bones  shall  say.  Lord,  who  is  like  unto  thee  ?  "  (Ps.  xxxv.  10). 
Because  a  consideration  of  the  properties  of  the  bones  leads  to  the  discovery 
of  that  truth,  and  it  is  through  them  that  it  became  known,  they  are  repre- 
sented as  having  uttered  the  divine  praise  ;    and  since  this  [cause  of  God's 
praise]  is  itself  called  "  praise,"  it  has  been  said  "  the  fulness  of  the  whole 
earth  is  his  praise  "  (Isa.  vi.  3),  in  the  same  sense  as  "  the  earth  is  full  of  his 
praise  "  (Hab.  iii.  3).     As  to  kabod  being  employed  in  the  sense  of  praise, 
comp.  "  Give  praise  (kabod)  to  the  Lord  your  God  "  (Jer.  xiii.  16)  ;  also  "  and 
in  his  temple  does  every  one  speak  of  his  praise  (kabod)  "  (Ps.  xxix.  9),  etc. 
Consider  well  the  homonymity  of  this  term,  and  explain  it  in  each  instance 
in  accordance  with  the  context ;   you  will  thus  escape  great  embarrassment. 

CHAPTER    LXV 
After  vou  have  nilv.inccd  thus  far,  and  truly  comprehended  that  God  exists 


GOD   SPAKE  97 

without  having  the  attribute  of  existence,  and  that  He  is  One,  without  having 
the  attribute  of  unity,  I  do  not  think  that  I  need  explain  to  you  the  inad- 
missibility of  the  attribute  of  speech  in  reference  to  God,  especially  since  our 
people  generally  believe  that  the  Law,  i.e.,  the  word  ascribed  to  Him,  was 
created.  Speech  is  attributed  to  Him,  in  so  far  as  the  word  which  Moses 
heard,  was  produced  and  brought  to  existence  by  God  in  the  same  manner 
as  He  produced  all  His  other  works  and  creations.  As  we  shall  have  to  speak 
more  fully  on  prophecy,  we  shall  here  merely  show  that  speech  is  attributed 
to  God  in  the  same  way  as  all  other  actions,  which  are  similar  to  our  own. 
When  we  are  told  that  God  addressed  the  Prophets  and  spoke  to  them,  our 
minds  are  merely  to  receive  a  notion  that  there  is  a  Divine  knowledge  to 
which  the  Prophets  attain  ;  we  are  to  be  impressed  with  the  idea  that  the 
things  which  the  Prophets  communicate  to  us  come  from  the  Lord,  and  are 
not  altogether  the  products  of  their  own  conceptions  and  ideas.  This  sub- 
ject, which  we  have  already  mentioned  above,  will  receive  further  explana- 
tion. It  is  the  object  of  this  chapter  to  show  that  the  words  "  speaking  "  and 
"  saying  "  are  synonymous  terms  denoting  (a)  "  Speech  "  ;  as,  e.g.,  "  Moses 
shall  speak  (yedabber)  "  (Exod.  xix.  19)  ;  "  And  Pharaoh  said  (va-yomer)  " 
{ib.  V.  5)  ;  (b)  "  Thought  "  as  formed  in  the  mind  without  being  expressed 
in  words  ;  e.g.,  "  And  I  thought  (ve-amarti)  in  my  heart  "  (Eccles.  ii.  15)  ; 
"  And  I  thought  (vedibbarti)  in  my  heart  "  {ib)  ;  "  And  thy  heart  will  im- 
agine {yedabber)  "  (Prov.  xxiii.  33)  ;  "  Concerning  Thee  my  heart  thought 
{amar)  "  (Ps.  xxvii.  8)  ;  "  And  Esau  thought  {va-yomer)  in  his  heart  "  (Gen. 
xxvii.  41)  ;  examples  of  this  kind  are  numerous  ;  {c)  Will ;  e.g.,  "  And  he 
said  (va-yomer)  to  slay  David  "  (2  Sam.  xxi.  16),  that  is  to  say,  he  wished  or 
he  intended  to  slay  him  ;  "  Dost  thou  desire  {omer)  to  slay  me  "  (Exod.  ii. 
14)  ;  "  And  the  whole  congragation  intended  {va-yomeru)  to  stone  them  " 
(Num.  xiv.  10).     Instances  of  this  kind  are  likewise  numerous. 

The  two  terms,  when  applied  to  God,  can  only  have  one  of  the  two  last- 
mentioned  significations,  viz.,  he  wills  and  he  desires,  or  he  thinks,  and  there 
is  no  difference  whether  the  divine  thought  became  known  to  man  by  means 
of  an  actual  voice,  or  by  one  of  those  kinds  of  inspiration  which  I  shall  explain 
further  on  (II.  chap,  xxxviii.).  We  must  not  suppose  that  in  speaking  God 
employed  voice  or  sound,  or  that  He  has  a  soul  in  which  the  thoughts  reside, 
and  that  these  thoughts  are  things  superadded  to  His  essence  ;  but  we 
ascribe  and  attribute  to  Him  thoughts  in  the  same  manner  as  we  ascribe  to 
Him  any  other  attributes.  The  use  of  these  words  in  the  sense  of  will  and 
desire,  is  based,  as  I  have  explained,  on  the  homonymity  of  these  terms. 
In  addition  they  are  figures  borrowed  from  our  common  practices,  as  has 
been  already  pointed  out.  For  we  cannot,  at  a  first  glance,  see  how  any- 
thing can  be  produced  by  a  mere  desire  ;  we  think  that  he  who  wishes  to 
produce  a  thing,  must  perform  a  certain  act,  or  command  some  one  else  to 
perform  it.  Therefore  the  command  is  figuratively  ascribed  to  God  when 
that  takes  place  which  He  wishes,  and  we  then  say  that  He  commanded  that 
a  certain  thing  should  be  accomplished.  All  this  has  its  origin  in  our  com- 
paring the  acts  of  God  to  our  own  acts,  and  also  in  the  use  of  the  term  amar 
in  the  sense  of  "  He  desired,"  as  we  have  already  explained.  The  words  "  And 
He  said,"  occurring  in  the  account  of  the  creation,  signify  "  He  wished,"  or 
"  He  desired."     Tiiis  has  already  been  stated  by  other  authors,  and  is  well 


98  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

known.  A  proof  for  this,  namely  that  the  phrase  "  God  said,"  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  must  be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense  "  He  willed,"  and  not 
in  its  literal  meaning,  is  found  in  the  circumstance  that  a  command  can 
only  be  given  to  a  being  which  exists  and  is  capable  of  receiving  the  com- 
mand. Comp.  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all 
the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth  "  (Ps.  xxxiii.  6).  "  His  mouth," 
and  "  the  breath  of  his  mouth,"  are  undoubtedly  figurative  expressions, 
and  the  same  is  the  case  with  "  His  word  "  and  "  His  speech."  The  meaning 
of  the  verse  is  therefore  that  they  [the  heavens  and  all  their  host]  exist  through 
His  will  and  desire.  All  our  eminent  authorities  are  cognisant  of  this  ;  and, 
I  need  not  explain  that  in  Hebrew  amar  and  dibber  have  the  same  meaning, 
as  is  proved  by  the  passage,  "  For  it  has  heard  all  the  words  {imre)  of  the 
Lord  which  he  spake  {dibber)  unto  us  "  (Josh.  xxiv.  27). 

CHAPTER    LXVI 

"  And  the  tables  were  the  work  of  God  "  (Exod.  xxxii.  16),  that  is  to  say, 
they  were  the  product  of  nature,  not  of  art ;  for  all  natural  things  are  called 
"  the  work  of  the  Lord,"  e.g.,  "  These  see  the  works  of  the  Lord  "  (Ps.  cvii. 
24)  ;  and  the  description  of  the  several  things  in  nature,  as  plants,  animals, 
winds,  rain,  etc.,  is  followed  by  the  exclamation,  "  O  Lord,  how  manifold 
are  thy  works !  "  (Ps.  civ.  24).  StUl  more  striking  is  the  relation  between 
God  and  His  creatures,  as  expressed  in  the  phrase,  "  The  cedars  of  Lebanon, 
which  he  hath  planted  "  {ib.  16)  ;  the  cedars  being  the  product  of  nature, 
and  not  of  art,  are  described  as  having  been  planted  by  the  Lord,  Similarly 
we  explain,  "  And  the  writing  was  the  writing  of  God  "  (Exod.  xxxii.  16)  ; 
the  relation  in  which  the  writing  stood  to  God  has  already  been  defined  in 
the  words  "  written  vsdth  the  finger  of  God  "  {ib.  xxxi.  18),  and  the  meaning 
of  this  phrase  is  the  same  as  that  of  "  the  work  of  thy  fingers  "  (Ps.  viii.  4). 
this  being  said  of  the  heavens  ;  of  the  latter  it  has  been  stated  distinctly  that 
they  were  made  by  a  word  ;  comp.  "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
heavens  made  "  {ib.  xxxiii.  6).  Hence  you  learn  that  in  the  Bible,  the  crea- 
tion of  a  thing  is  figuratively  expressed  by  terms  denoting  "  word  "  and 
"  speech  "  The  same  thing  which  according  to  one  passage  has  been  made 
by  the  word,  is  represented  in  another  passage  as  made  by  the  "  finger  of 
God."  The  phrase  "  written  by  the  finger  of  God  "  is  therefore  identical 
with  "  written  by  the  word  of  God  "  ;  and  if  the  latter  phrase  had  been 
used,  it  would  have  been  equal  to  "  written  by  the  will  and  desire  of  God." 
Onkelos  adopted  in  this  place  a  strange  explanation,  and  rendered  the  words 
literally  "  written  by  the  finger  of  the  Lord  "  ;  he  thought  that  "  the  finger  " 
was  a  certain  thing  ascribed  to  God  ;  so  that  "  the  finger  of  the  Lord  "  is  to 
be  interpreted  in  the  same  way  as  "  the  mountain  of  God  "  (Exod.  iii.  l), 
"  the  rod  of  God  "  {ib.  iv.  20),  that  is,  as  being  an  instrument  created  by 
Him,  which  by  His  will  engraved  the  writing  on  the  tables.  I  cannot  see 
why  Onkelos  preferred  this  explanation.  It  would  have  been  more  reason- 
able to  say  "  written  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  in  imitation  of  the  verse  "  By 
the  word  of  the  Lord  the  heavens  were  made."  Or  was  the  creation  of  the 
writing  on  the  tables  more  difficult  than  the  creation  of  the  stars  in  the 
spheres  ?     As  the  latter  were  made  by  the  direct  will  of  God,  not  by  means 


GOD   RESTED 


09 


of  an  instrument,  the  writing  may  also  have  been  produced  by  His  direct 
will,  not  by  means  of  an  instrument.  You  know  what  the  Mislinah  says, 
"  Ten  things  were  created  on  Friday  in  the  twilight  of  the  evening,  and 
"  the  writing  "  is  one  of  the  ten  things.  This  shows  how  generally  it  was 
assumed  by  our  forefathers  that  the  writing  of  the  tables  was  produced  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  rest  of  the  creation,  as  we  have  shown  in  our  Commen- 
tary on  the  Mishnah  {Aboth,  v.  6). 

CHAPTER  LXVn 

Since  the  verb  "  to  say  "  has  been  figuratively  used  to  express  the  will  of  the 
Creator,  and  the  phrase  "  And  he  said  "  has  repeatedly  been  employed  in 
the  account  of  all  the  things  created  in  "  the  six  days  of  the  beginning,"  the 
expression  "  to  rest  "  has  likewise  been  figuratively  applied  to  God  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Sabbath-day,  on  which  there  was  no  creation  ;  it  is  therefore 
said,  "  And  he  rested  (va-ytshbot)  on  the  seventh  day  "  (Gen.  ii.  2).  For 
"  to  leave  off  speaking  "  is,  in  Hebrew,  likewise  expressed  by  the  same  verb, 
as,  e.g.,  "  So  these  three  men  ceased  (va-yishbetu)  to  answer  Job  "  (Job 
xxxii.  l)  ;  also  by  nuah,  as,  in  "  They  spake  to  Nabal  according  to  all  those 
words  in  the  name  of  David,  and  ceased  (va-yanuhu)  "  (l  Sam.  xxv.  9).  In 
my  opinion,  {va-yanuhu)  means  "  they  ceased  to  speak,"  and  waited  for  the 
answer ;  for  no  allusion  to  exertion  whatever  having  previously  been  men- 
tioned, the  words,  "  and  they  rested,"  in  its  primary  signification,  would  have 
been  entirely  out  of  place  in  that  narrative,  even  if  the  young  men  who  spoke 
had  really  used  some  exertion.  The  author  relates  that  having  delivered 
that  whole  speech,  which,  as  you  find,  consisted  of  gentle  expressions,  they 
were  silent,  that  is  to  say,  they  did  not  add  any  word  or  act  by  which  the 
reply  of  Nabal  could  be  justified  ;  it  being  the  object  of  the  entire  passage 
to  represent  Nabal's  conduct  as  extremely  reprehensible.  In  that  sense 
[viz.,  "  to  cease,"  or  "  to  leave  off  "]  the  verb  nuah  is  used  in  the  phrase 
"  And  he  left  off  {va-yanah)  on  the  seventh  day." 

Our  Sages,  and  some  of  the  Commentators,  took,  however,  nuah  in  its 
primary  sense  "  to  rest,"  but  as  a  transitive  form  (hiphil),  explaining  the 
phrase  thus  :  "  and  he  gave  rest  to  the  world  on  the  seventh  day,"  i.e.,  no 
further  act  of  creation  took  place  on  that  day. 

It  is  possible  that  the  word  va-yanah  is  derived  either  from  yanah,  a  verb 
of  the  class  fe-yod,  or  nahah,  a  verb  of  the  class  lamed-he,  and  has  this  mean- 
ing :  "  he  established  "  or  "  he  governed  "  the  Universe  in  accordance  with 
the  properties  it  possessed  on  the  seventh  day  "  ;  that  is  to  say,  while  on  each 
of  the  six  days  events  took  place  contrary  to  the  natural  laws  now  in  operation 
throughout  the  Universe,  on  the  seventh  day  the  Universe  was  merely  up- 
held and  left  in  the  condition  in  which  it  continues  to  exist.  Our  explana- 
tion is  not  impaired  by  the  fact  that  the  form  of  the  word  deviates  from  the 
rules  of  verbs  of  these  two  classes ;  for  there  are  frequent  exceptions  to  the 
rules  of  conjugations,  and  especially  of  the  weak  verbs ;  and  any  interpreta- 
tion which  removes  such  a  source  of  error  must  not  be  abandoned  because  of 
certain  grammatical  rules.  We  know  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the  sacred 
language,  and  that  grammatical  rules  only  apply  to  the  majority  of  cases. — 
The  same  root  is  also  found  as  a  verb  'zy'm-vav  in  the  sense  "  to  place  "  and 


100  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

"  to  set,"  as  e.g.,  "  and  it  shall  be  established  and  she  shall  be  placed  (ve- 
hutmihah)  tliere  upon  her  own  base"  (Zech.  v.  ii),  and  "she  suffered 
neither  the  birds  of  the  air  to  settle  Qa-nuah)  on  them  "  (2  Sam.  xxi.  10). 
According  to  my  opinion,  the  verb  has  the  same  signification  in  Hab.  iii. 
16,  "  that  I  might  remain  firm  (anuah)  in  the  day  of  trouble." 

The  word  (va-yinnafash)  is  a  verb  derived  from  nefesh,  the  homonymity 
of  which  we  have  already  explained  (chap,  xli.),  namely,  that  it  has  the  sig- 
nification of  intention  or  will ;  (va-yinnafash)  accordingly  means  :  "  that 
which  he  desired  was    accomplished,  and  what  he  wished  had  come  into 


existence." 


CHAPTER  LXVIII 

You  are  acquainted  with  the  well-known  principle  of  the  philosophers  that 
God  is  the  intellectus,  the  ens  intelligens,  and  the  ens  intelligibile.  These 
three  things  are  in  God  one  and  the  same,  and  do  not  in  any  way  constitute 
a  plurality.  We  have  also  mentioned  it  in  our  larger  work,  "  Mishneh  Torah" 
and  we  have  explained  there  that  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  our  reli- 
gion, namely,  that  He  is  absolutely  one,  that  nothing  combines  with  Him ; 
that  is  to  say,  there  is  no  Eternal  thing  besides  Him.  On  that  account  we 
say  hai  adonay, "  the  Lord  liveth  "  (Ruth  iii.  13),  and  not  he  aionay,  "  the 
life  of  the  Lord,"  for  His  life  is  not  a  thing  distinct  from  His  essence,  as  we 
have  explained  in  treating  of  the  inadmissibility  of  the  attributes.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  he  who  has  not  studied  any  works  on  mental  philosophy, 
who  has  not  comprehended  the  nature  of  the  mind,  who  has  no  knowledge 
of  its  essence,  and  considers  it  in  no  other  way  than  he  would  consider  the 
nature  of  whiteness  and  of  blackness,  will  find  this  subject  extremely  dif- 
ficult, and  to  him  our  principle  that  the  intellectus,  the  intelligens,  and  the 
intelligibile,  are  in  God  one  and  the  same  thing,  will  appear  as  unintelligible 
as  if  we  said  that  the  whiteness,  the  whitening  substance,  and  the  material 
which  is  whitened  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  And,  indeed,  many  ignorant 
people  refute  at  once  our  principle  by  using  such  comparisons,.  Even 
amongst  those  who  imagine  that  they  are  wise,  many  find  this  subject  diffi- 
cult, and  are  of  opinion  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  mind  to  grasp  the  truth 
of  this  proposition,  although  it  is  a  demonstrated  truth,  as  has  been  shown 
by  Metaphysicians.  I  will  tell  you  now  what  has  been  proved.  Man,  be- 
fore comprehending  a  thing,  comprehends  it  in  potentia  (Suj^a/xci) ;  when, 
however,  he  comprehends  a  thing,  e.g.,  the  form  of  a  certain  tree  which  is 
pointed  out  to  him,  when  he  abstracts  its  form  from  its  substance,  and  repro- 
duces the  abstract  form,  an  act  performed  by  the  intellect,  he  comprehends 
in  reality  (o'epyeia),  and  the  intellect  which  he  has  acquired  in  actuality,  is 
the  abstract  form  of  the  tree  in  man's  mind.  For  in  such  a  case  the  intellect 
is  not  a  thing  distinct  from  the  thing  comprehended.  It  is  therefore  clear 
to  you  that  the  thing  comprehended  is  the  abstract  form  of  the  tree,  and  at 
the  same  time  it  is  the  intellect  in  action  ;  and  that  the  intellect  and  the 
abstract  form  of  the  tree  are  not  two  different  things,  for  the  intellect  in 
action  is  nothing  but  the  thing  comprehended,  and  tliat  agent  by  which  the 
form  of  the  tree  has  been  turned  into  an  intellectual  and  abstract  object, 
namely,  that  which  comprehends,  is  undoubtedly  the  intellect  in  action. 


INTELLECTUS,  INTELLIGENS  AND  INTELLIGIBILE  loi 

All  intellect  is  identical  with  its  action  ;  the  intellect  in  action  is  not  a  thing 
different  from  its  action,  for  the  true  nature  and  assence  of  the  intellect  is 
comprehension,  and  you  must  not  think  that  the  intellect  in  action  is  a  thing 
existing  by  itself,  separate  from  comprehension,  and  that  comprehension  is 
a  different  thing  connected  with  it ;  for  the  very  essence  of  the  intellect  is 
comprehension.  In  assuming  an  intellect  in  action  you  assume  the  com- 
prehension of  the  thing  comprehended.  This  is  quite  clear  to  all  who  have 
made  themselves  familiar  with  the  figurative  language  common  to  this 
discipline.  You  therefore  accept  it  as  proved  that  the  intellect  consists  in 
its  action,  which  is  its  true  nature  and  essence.  Consequently  the  very 
thing  by  which  the  form  of  that  tree  has  been  made  abstract  and  intelligible, 
viz.,  the  intellect,  is  at  the  same  time  the  intelligens^  for  the  intellect  is  itself 
the  agens  which  abstracts  the  form  and  comprehends  it,  and  that  is  the  action, 
on  account  of  which  it  is  called  the  intelligens  ;  but  itself  and  its  action  are 
identical ;  and  that  which  is  called  intellect  in  action  consists  [in  the  above- 
mentioned  instance]  of  nothing  else  but  of  the  form  of  the  tree.  It  must 
now  be  obvious  to  you  that  whenever  the  intellect  is  found  in  action,  the 
intellect  and  the  thing  comprehended  are  one  and  the  same  thing  ;  and 
also  that  the  function  of  all  intellect,  namely,  the  act  of  comprehending,  is 
its  essence.  The  intellect,  that  which  comprehends  and  that  which  is  com- 
prehended, are  therefore  the  same,  whenever  a  real  comprehension  takes 
place.  But,  when  we  speak  of  the  power  of  comprehension,  we  neces- 
sarily distinguish  two  things :  the  power  itself,  and  the  thing  which  can  be 
comprehended  ;  e.g.,  that  hylic  intellect  of  Zaid  is  the  power  of  compre- 
hension, and  this  tree  is,  in  like  manner,  a  thing  which  is  capable  of  being 
comprehended ;  these,  undoubtedly,  are  two  different  things.  When, 
however,  the  potential  is  replaced  by  the  actual,  and  when  the  form  of  the 
tree  has  really  been  comprehended,  the  form  comprehended  is  the  intellect, 
and  it  is  by  that  same  intellect,  by  the  intellect  in  action,  that  the  tree  has 
been  converted  into  an  abstract  idea,  and  has  been  comprehended.  For 
everything  in  which  a  real  action  takes  place  exists  in  reality.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  power  of  comprehension,  and  the  object  capable  of  comprehension 
are  two  things ;  but  that  which  is  only  potential  cannot  be  imagined  other- 
wise than  in  connexion  with  an  object  possessing  that  capacity,  as,  e.g., 
man,  and  thus  we  have  three  things :  the  man  who  possesses  the  power,  and 
is  capable  of  comprehending  ;  that  power  itself,  namely,  the  power  of  com- 
prehension, and  the  object  which  presents  itself  as  an  object  of  compre- 
hension, and  is  capable  of  being  comprehended  ;  to  use  the  foregoing  example, 
the  man,  the  hylic  intellect,  and  the  abstract  form  of  the  tree,  are  three 
different  things.  They  become  one  and  the  same  thing  when  the  intellect 
is  in  action,  and  you  will  never  find  the  intellect  different  from  the  compre- 
hensible object,  unless  the  power  of  comprehending  and  the  power  of  being 
comprehended  be  referred  to.  Now,  it  has  been  proved,  that  God  is  an 
intellect  which  always  is  in  action,  and  that— as  has  been  stated,  and  as  will 
be  proved  hereafter— there  is  in  Him  at  no  time  a  mere  potentiality,  that 
He  does  not  comprehend  at  one  time,  and  is  without  comprehension  at 
another  time,  but  He  comprehends  constantly ;  consequently.  He  and  the 
things  comprehended  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  that  is  to  say,  His  essence  ; 
and  the  act  of  comprehending  because  of  which  it  is  said  that  He  compro- 


102  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

hends,  is  the  intellect  itself,  which  is  likewise  His  essence,  God  is  therefore 
always  the  intellectus,  the  intelligens,  and  the  intelligibile. 

We  have  thus  shown  that  the  identity  of  the  intellect,  the  intelligens  and 
the  inulligihile,  is  not  only  a  fact  as  regards  the  Creator,  but  as  regards  all 
intellect,  when  in  action.  There  is,  however,  this  difference,  that  from 
time  to  time  our  intellect  passes  over  from  mere  potentiality  to  reality,  and 
that  the  pure  intellect,  i.e.,  the  active  intellect,  finds  sometimes  obstacles, 
though  not  in  itself,  but  accidentally  in  some  external  cause.  It  is  not  our 
present  intention  to  explain  this  subject,  but  we  will  merely  show  that  God 
alone,  and  none  besides  Him,  is  an  intellect  constantly  in  action,  and  there 
is,  neither  in  Himself  nor  in  anything  beside  Him,  any  obstacle  whereby  His 
comprehension  would  be  hindered.  Therefore  He  always  includes  the 
intelligens,  the  intellectus,  and  the  intelligibile,  and  His  essence  is  at  the  same 
time  the  intelligens,  the  intelligibile,  and  the  intellectus,  as  is  necessarily  the 
case  with  all  intellect  in  action. 

We  have  reiterated  this  idea  in  the  present  chapter  because  it  is  exceed- 
ingly abstruse,  and  I  do  not  apprehend  that  the  reader  will  confound  in- 
tellectual comprehension  with,  the  representative  faculty — wdth  the  repro- 
duction of  the  material  image  in  our  imagination,  since  this  work  is  de- 
signed only  for  those  who  have  studied  philosophy,  and  who  know  what  has 
already  been  said  on  the  soul  and  its  faculties. 

CHAPTER  LXIX 

The  philosophers,  as.you  know,  call  God  the  First  Cause  (in  Hebrew  'illah  and 
sibbah)  :    but  those  who  are  known  by  the  name  of  Mutakallemim  are  very 
much  opposed  to  the  use  of  that  name,  and  call  Him  Agens,  believing  that 
there  is  a  great  difference  whether  we  say  that  God  is  the  Cause  or  that  He  is 
the  Agens.     They  argue  thus :    If  we  say  that  God  is  the  Cause,  the  co- 
existence of  the  Cause  with  that  which  was  produced  by  that  Cause  would 
necessarily  be  implied  ;  this  again  would  involve  the  belief  that  the  Universe 
was  eternal,  and  that  it  was  inseparable  from  God.     When,  however,  we  say 
that  God  is  the  Agens,  the  co-existence  of  the  Agens  with  its  product  is  not 
implied  ;    for  the  ugens  can  exist  anterior  to  its  product ;    we  cannot  even 
imagine  how  an  agens  can  be  in  action  unless  it  existed  before  its  own  pro- 
duction.    This  is  an  argument  advanced  by  persons  who  do  not  distinguish 
between  the  potential  and  the  actual.     You,  however,  should  know  that  in 
this  case  there  is  no  difference  whether  you  employ  the  term  "  cause  "  or 
"  agens  "  ;   for  if  you  take  the  term  "  cause  "  in  the  sense  of  a  mere  poten- 
tiality, it  precedes  its  effect ;  but  if  you  mean  the  cause  in  action,  then  the 
effect  must  necessarily  co-exist  with  the  cause  in  action.     The  same  is  the 
case  with  the  agens  ;   take  it  as  an  agens  in  reality,  the  work  must  necessarily 
co-exist  with  its  agens.     For  the  builder,  before  he  builds  the  house,  is  not 
in  reality  a  builder,  but  has  the  faculty  for  building  a  house — in  the  same 
way  as   the   materials   for   the   house   before   it   is   being  built  are  merely 
in  potentia — but  when  the  house  has  been  built,  he  is  the  builder  in  reality, 
and  his  product  must  likewise  be  in  actual  existence.     Nothing  is  therefore 
gained  by  choosing  the  term  "  agens  "    and  rejecting  the    term  "  cause." 
My  object  here  is  to  show  that  these  two  terms  are  equal,  and  in  the  same 


THE    FIRST   CAUSE  103 

manner  as  we  call  God  an  Agens,  although  the  work  does  not  yet  exist,  only 
because  there  is  no  hindrance  or  obstacle  which  might  prevent  Him  from 
doing  it  whenever  He  pleases,  we  may  also  call  Him  the  Cause,  although 
the  effect  may  not  yet  be  in  existence. 

The  reason  why  the  philosophers  called  God  the  Cause,  and  did  not  call 
Him  the  Agens,  is  not  to  be  sought  in  their  belief  that  the  universe  is  eternal, 
but  in  other  motives,  which  I  will  briefly  describe  to  you.  It  has  been  shown 
in  the  science  of  Physics  that  everything,  except  the  Primal  Cause,  owes  its 
origin  to  the  following  four  causes  : — the  substance,  the  form,  the  agens,  the 
final  cause.  These  are  sometimes  direct,  sometimes  indirect  causes ;  but  each 
by  itself  is  called  "  a  cause."  They  also  believe— and  I  do  not  differ  from  their 
opinion — that  God  Himself  is  the  agens,  the  form,  and  the  end ;  therefore 
they  call  God  "  the  Cause,"  in  order  to  express  that  He  unites  in  Himself 
these  three  causes,  viz.,  that  He  is  the  agens,  the  form,  and  the  final  cause  of 
the  universe.  In  the  present  chapter  I  only  wish  to  show  you  in  what  sense 
it  may  be  said  of  God  that  He  is  the  agens,  the  form,  and  also  the  final  cause 
of  the  universe.  You  need  not  trouble  yourself  now  with  the  question 
whether  the  universe  has  been  created  by  God,  or  whether,  as  the  philosophers 
have  assumed,  it  is  eternal,  co-existing  with  Him.  You  v«ll  find  [in  the 
pages  of  this  treatise]  full  and  instructive  information  on  the  subject.  Here 
I  wish  to  show  that  God  is  the  "  cause  "  of  every  event  that  takes  place  in 
the  world,  just  as  He  is  the  Creator  of  the  whole  universe  as  it  now  exists. 
It  has  already  been  explained  in  the  science  of  Physics,  that  a  cause  must 
again  be  sought  for  each  of  the  four  divisions  of  causes.  When  we  have 
found  for  any  existing  thing  those  four  causes  which  are  in  immediate  con- 
nexion with  it,  we  find  for  these  again  causes,  and  for  these  again  other 
causes,  and  so  on  until  we  arrive  at  the  first  causes.  E.g.,  a  certain  produc- 
tion has  its  agens,  this  agens  again  has  its  agens,  and  so  on  and  on  until  at  last 
we  arrive  at  a  first  agens,  which  is  the  true  agens  throughout  aU  the  inter- 
vening links.  If  the  letter  aleph  be  moved  by  bet,  bet  by  gimel,  gimel  by 
dalet,  and  dalet  by  he  —  and  as  the  series  does  not  extend  to  infinity, 
ler  us  stop  at  he — there  is  no  doubt  that  the  he  moves  the  letters 
aleph,  bet,  gimel,  and  dalet,  and  we  say  correctly  that  the  aleph  is  moved  by 
he.  In  that  sense  everything  occurring  in  the  universe,  although  directly 
produced  by  certain  nearer  causes,  is  ascribed  to  the  Creator,  as  we  shall 
explain.  He  is  the  Agens,  and  He  is  therefore  the  ultimate  cause.  We  shall 
also  find,  after  careful  examination,  that  every  physical  and  transient  form 
must  be  preceded  by  another  such  form,  by  which  the  substance  has  been 
fitted  to  receive  the  next  form  ;  the  previous  form  again  has  been  preceded 
by  another,  and  we  arrive  at  length  at  that  form  which  is  necessary  for  the 
existence  of  all  intermediate  forms,  which  arc  the  causes  of  the  present  form. 
That  form  to  which  the  forms  of  all  existing  things  are  traced  is  God.  You 
must  not  imagine  that  when  we  say  that  God  is  the  first  form  of  all  forms 
existing  in  the  Universe,  we  refer  to  that  first  form  which  Aristotle,  in  the 
P)Ook  of  Metaphysics,  describes  as  being  without  beginning  and  without  end, 
for  he  treats  of  a  form  which  is  a  physical,  and  not  a  purely  intellectual  one. 
When  we  call  God  the  ultimate  form  of  the  universe,  we  do  not  use  this  term 
in  the  sense  of  form  connected  with  substance,  namely,  as  the  form  of  that 
substance,  as  though  God  were  the  form  of  a  material  being.     It  is  not  in  this 


I04  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

sense  that  we  use  it,  but  in  the  following  :   Everything  existing  and  endowed 
with  a  form,  is  whatever  it  is  through  its  form,  and  when  that  form  is  de- 
stroyed its  whole  existence  terminates  and  is  obliterated.     The  same  is  the 
case  as  regards  the  relation  between  God  and  all  distant  causes  of  existing 
beings  ;   it  is  through  the  existence  of  God  that  all  things  exist,  and  it  is  He 
who  maintains  their  existence  by  that  process  which  is  called  emanation 
(in  Hebrew  shepha^),  as  will  be  explained  in  one  of  the  chapters  of  the  present 
work.     If  God  did  not  exist,  suppose  this  were  possible,  the  universe  would 
not  exist,  and  there  would  be  an  end  to  the  existence  of  the  distant  causes, 
the  final  effects,  and  the  intermediate  causes.     Consequently  God  maintains 
the  same  relation  to  the  world  as  the  form  has  to  a  thing  endowed  with  a 
form  ;   through  the  form  it  is  what  it  is,  and  on  it  the  reality  and  essence  of 
the  thing  depends.      In  this  sense  we  may  say  that  God  is  the  ultimate  form, 
that  He  is  the  form  of  all  forms ;  that  is  to  say,  the  existence  and  continuance 
of  all  forms  in  the  last  instance  depend  on  Him,  the  forms  are  maintained  by 
Him,  in  the  same  way  as  all  things  endowed  with  forms  retain  their  existence 
through  their  forms.     On  that  account  God  is  called,  in  the  sacred  lan- 
guage, he  ha-'olamim,  "  the  life  of  the  Universe,"  as  will  be  explained  (chap. 
Ixxii.).     The  same  argument  holds  good  in  reference  to  all  final  causes.     If 
you  assign  to  a  thing  a  certain  purpose,  you  can  find  for  that  purpose  another 
purpose.     We  mention,  e.g.,  a  (wooden)  chair  ;    its  substance  is  wood,  the 
joiner  is  its  agens,  the  square  its  form,  and  its  purpose  is  that  one  should  sit 
upon  it.     You  may  then  ask,  For  what  purpose  does  one  sit  upon  it  ?     The 
answer  will  be  that  he  who  is  sitting  upon  it  desires  to  be  high  above  the 
ground.     If  again  you  ask,  For  what  purpose  does  he  desire  to  be  high  above 
the  ground,  you  wdU  receive  the  answer  that  he  wishes  to  appear  high  in  the 
eyes  of  those  who  see  him.     For  what  purpose  does  he  wish  to  appear  higher 
in  the  eyes  of  those  who  see  him  ?     That  the  people  may  respect  and  fear 
him.     What  is  the  good  of  his  being  feared  ?     His  commands  will  be  re- 
spected.    For  what  purpose  are   his  commands  to  be  respected  ?     That 
people  shall  refrain  from  injuring  each   other.    What   is   the  object  of  this 
precaution  ?     To  maintain  order  amongst  the  people.     In  this  way  one 
purpose  necessitates  the  pre-existence  of  another,  except  the  final  purpose, 
wliich  is  the  execution  of  the  will  of  God,  according  to  one  of  the  opinions 
which  have  been  propounded,  as  will  be  explained  (III.  xiii.  and  xvii.),  and 
the  final  answer  will  be,  "  It  is  the  will  of  God."     According  to  the  view  of 
others,  which  will  likewise  be  explained,  the  final  purpose  is  the  execution 
of  the  decree  of  His  wisdom,  and  the  final  answer  will  be,  "  It  has  been  de- 
creed by  His  wisdom."     According  to  either  opinion,  the  series  of  the  suc- 
cessive purposes  terminates,  as  has  been  shown,  in  God's  will  or  wisdom, 
which,  in  our  opinion,  are  identical  with  His  essence,  and  are  not  any  thing 
separate  from  Himself  or  different  from  His  essence.     Consequently,  God 
IS  the  final  purpose  of  everything.     Again,  it  is  the  aim  of  everything  to 
become,  according  to  its  faculties,  similar  to  God  in  perfection  ;    this  is 
meant  by  the  expression,  "  His  will,  which  is  identical  with  His  essence," 
as  will  be  shown  below  (ibid.).     In  this  sense  God  is  called  the  End  of  all 
ends. 

I  have  thus  explained  to  you  in  what  sense  God  is  said  to  be  the  J  gens,  the 
Form,  and  the  End.     This  is  the  reason  why  the  philosophers  not  only  call 


"RIDING    UPON    THE     'ARABOT'  105 

Him  "  the  Maker  ''  but  also  the  "  Cause."  Some  of  the  sclmlars  bclnnf;inp 
to  the  A'lutakallcmim  (Mohammedan  theologians),  went  so  far  in  their  folly 
and  in  their  vainglory  as  to  say  that  the  non-existence  of  the  Creator,  if  that 
were  possible,  would  not  necessarily  imply  the  non-existence  of  the  things 
created  by  Him,  i.e.,  the  Universe  :  for  a  production  need  not  necessarily 
cease  to  exist  when  the  producer,  after  having  produced  it,  has  ceased  to 
exist.  They  would  be  right,  if  God  were  only  the  maker  of  the  Universe, 
and  if  its  permanent  existence  were  not  dependent  on  Him.  The  store- 
house does  not  cease  to  exist  at  the  death  of  the  builder  ;  for  he  does  not 
give  permanent  existence  to  the  building.  God,  however,  is  Himself  the 
form  of  the  Universe,  as  we  have  already  shown,  and  it  is  He  who  causes  its 
continuance  and  permanency.  It  is  therefore  wrong  to  say  that  a  thing  can 
remain  durable  and  permanent,  after  the  being  that  makes  it  durable  and 
permanent  has  ceased  to  exist,  since  that  thing  can  possess  no  more  durability 
and  permanency  than  it  has  received  from  that  being.  Now  you  understand 
the  greatness  of  the  error  into  which  they  have  fallen  through  their  assump- 
tion that  God  is  only  the  Jgens,  and  not  the  End  or  the  Form. 

CHAPTER  LXX 

The  term  rakab,  "  to  ride,"  is  a  synonym.  In  its  primary  signification  it 
is  applied  to  man's  riding  on  an  animal,  in  the  usual  way ;  e.g.,  "  Now  he 
was  riding  (rokeb)  upon  his  ass  "  (Num.  xxii.  22).  It  has  then  been  figu- 
ratively used  to  denote  "  dominion  over  a  thing  "  ;  because  the  rider  governs 
and  rules  the  animal  he  rides  upon  ;  e.g.,  "  He  made  him  ride  (yarktbehu) 
on  the  high  places  of  the  earth  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  13)  ;  "  and  I  will  cause  thee  to 
ride  {ve-hirkabtika)  upon  the  high  places  of  the  earth  "  (Isa.  Iviii.  14),  that 
is,  you  shall  have  dominion  over  the  highest  (people)  on  earth  ;  "  I  will 
make  Ephraim  to  ride  {arkib)  "  (Hos.  x.  il),  i.e.,  I  shall  give  him  rule  and 
dominion.  In  this  same  sense  it  is  said  of  God,  "  who  rideth  {rokeb)  upon 
the  heaven  in  thy  help  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  26),  that  is,  who  rules  the  heaven  ; 
and  "  Him  that  rideth  (la-rokeb)  upon  the  'arabot  "  (Ps.  bcviii.  4),  i.e., 
who  rules  the  'arabot,  the  uppermost,  aU-encompassing  sphere.  It  h.is 
also  been  repeatedly  stated  by  our  Sages  that  there  are  seven  rektim  (firma- 
ments, heavens),  and  that  the  uppermost  of  them,  the  all-surrounding,  is 
called  'arabot.  Do  not  object  to  the  number  seven  given  by  them,  al- 
though there  are  more  reki'im,  for  there  are  spheres  which  contain  several 
circles  {gilgallim),  and  are  counted  as  one  ;  this  is  clear  to  those  who  have 
studied  that  subject,  and  I  shall  also  explain  it ;  here  I  wish  merely  to  point 
out  that  our  Sages  always  assumed  that  'arabot  is  the  uppermost  sphere.  The 
'arabot  is  also  referred  to  in  the  words,  "  who  rideth  upon  the  heaven  in  thy 
help."  Thus  we  read  in  Talm.  B.  Hagigah,  p.  12,  "  The  high  and  exalted 
dwelleth  on  'arabot,  as  it  is  said,  '  Extol  Him  that  rideth  upon  'arabot '  " 
(Ps.  Ixviii.  4).  How  is  it  proved  that  "  heaven  "  and  "  'arabot "  are  identical  .? 
The  one  passage  has  "  who  rideth  on  'arabot,"  the  other  "  who  rideth 
upon  the  heaven."  Hence  it  is  clear  that  in  all  these  passages  reference  is 
made  to  the  same  all-surrounding  sphere,  concerning  which  you  will  hereafter 
(II.  xxiv.)  receive  more  information.  Consider  well  that  the  expression 
"  dwelling  over  it,"  is  used  by  them,  and  not  "  dwelling  in  it."     The  latter 


io6  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

expression  would  have  implied  that  God  occupies  a  place  or  is  a  power  in  the 
sphere,  as  was  in  fact  believed  by  the  Sabeans,  who  held  that  God  was  the 
soul  of  the  sphere.     By  saying  "  dwelling  over  it,"  they  indicated  that  God 
was  separate  from  the  sphere,  and  was  not  a  power  in  it.     Know  also  that 
the  term  "  riding  upon  the  heavens,"  has  figuratively  been  applied  to  God 
in  order  to  show  the  following  excellent  comparison.     The  rider  is  better 
than  the  animal  upon  which  he  rides — the  comparative  is  only  used  for  the 
sake  of  convenience,  for  the  rider  is  not  of  the  same  class  as  the  animal  upon 
which  he  rides — furthermore,  the  rider  moves  the  animal  and  leads  it  as  he 
likes  ;  it  is  as  it  were  his  instrument,  which  he  uses  according  to  his  will ;  he 
is  separate  from  it,  apart  from  it,  not  connected  with  it.     In  like  manner  the 
uppermost  sphere,  by  the  rotation  of  which  everything  moveable  is  set  in 
motion,  is  moved  by  God,  who  is  separate  from  the  sphere,  and  is  not  a  power 
in  it.     In  Bereshit  Rabba  we  read  that  in  commenting  on  the  Divine  words, 
"  The  eternal  God  is  a  refuge  "  (lit.,  a  dwelling,  Deut.  xxxiii.  27),  our  Sages 
said,  "  He  is  the  dwelling  of   His  world,  the   world  is  not  His    dwelling." 
This  explanation  is  then  followed  by  the  remark,  "  The  horse  is  secondary  to 
the    rider,  the  rider    is    not   subservient  to  the  horse  ;  this    is  meant   by 
'  Thou  wilt  ride  upon   thy  horses '  "   (Hab.   iii.   8).      Consider  and    learn 
how  they  described  the  relation  of  God  to  the  sphere,  asserting  that  the  latter 
is  His  instrument,  by  means  of  which  He  rules  the  universe.     For  whenever 
you  find  our  Sages  saying  that  in  a  certain  heaven  are  certain  things,  they  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  in  the  heavens  there  are  any  extraneous  things,  but  that 
from  a  certain  heaven  the  force  emanates  which  is  required  for  the  produc- 
tion of  certain  things,  and  for  their  continuing  in  proper  order.     The  proof 
for  my  statement  you  may  find  in  the  following  sayings  of  our  Sages — "  The 
'arabot,  in  which  there  are  justice,  charity,  right,  treasures  of  life  and  peace, 
treasures  of  blessing,  of  the  souls  of  the  righteous,  of  the  souls  and  the  spirits  of 
those  to  be  born,  and  of  the  dew  by  which  God  will  at  some  future  time  revive 
the  dead,  etc."     It  is  clear  that  the  things  enumerated  here  are  not  material, 
and  do  not  occupy  a  place — for  "  dew  "  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense. 
— Consider  also  that  here  the  phrase  "  in  which,"  meaning  "  in  the  'arabot" 
is  used,  and  not  "  over  which,"  as  if  to  say  that  all  the  things  existing  in  the 
universe  derive  their  existence  from  powers    emanating    from  the  'arabot, 
which  God  made  to  be  the  origin  and  the  place  of  these  powers.     They  are 
said  to  include  "  the  treasures  of  life  "  ;    a  perfectly  true  and  correct  asser- 
tion !     For  all  existing  life  originates  in  that  treasure  of  life,  as  will  be  men- 
tioned below  (chap.  Ixii.,  and  II.  chap.  x.).     Reflect  on  the  fact  that  the 
souls  of  the  righteous  as  well  as  the  souls  and  the  spirits  of  those  to  be  born 
are  mentioned  here  !     How  sublime  is  this  idea  to  him  who  understands  it ! 
for  the  soul  that  remains  after  the  death  of  man,  is  not  the  soul  that  lives  in  a 
man  when  he  is  born  ;    the  latter  is  a  mere  faculty,  while  that  which  has  a 
separate  existence  after  death,  is  a  reality ;    again,  the  soul  and  the  spirit  of 
man  during  his  life  are  two  different  things ;    therefore  the  souls  and  the 
spirits  are  both  named  as  existing  in  man  ;   but  separate  from  the  body  only 
one  of  them  exists.     We   have   already  explained  the  homonymity  of  ruah 
(spirit)  in  tliis  work,  and  also  at  the  end  of  Sefer  ha  madda'  {Mishneh  torah 
Hil.  teshubah,  viii.  3-4)  we   treated  of  the  homonymity  of  these  expressions. 
Consider  how  these  excellent  and  true  ideas,  comprehended  only  by  the 


"RIDING    UPON    THE     'ARAHOT'  107 

greatest  philosophers,  arc  found  scattered  in  the  Midrasliim.  When  a 
student  who  disavows  truth  reads  them,  he  will  at  first  sight  deride  them, 
as  being  contrary  to  the  real  state  of  things.  The  cause  of  this  is  the  circum- 
stance, that  our  Sages  spoke  of  these  subjects  in  metaphors  ;  they  are  too 
difficult  for  the  common  understanding  of  the  people,  as  has  been  noticed 
by  us  several  times. 

I  will  now  return  to  the  subject  which  I  commenced  to  explain,  in  order 
to  bring  it  to  a  conclusion.  Our  Sages  commenced  to  adduce  proofs  from 
Scripture  for  their  assertion  that  the  things  enumerated  above  are  contained 
in  the  'arabot.  As  to  justice  and  right  they  quote  "  Justice  and  judgment 
are  the  habitation  of  thy  throne  "  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  18).  In  the  same  way  they 
prove  their  assertion  concerning  all  things  enumerated  by  them,  by  showing 
that  they  are  described  as  being  related  to  God,  as  being  near  Him.  Note 
this.  In  the  Pirke  Rabbi  Eliezer  it  is  said  :  God  created  seven  rekiim  (hea- 
vens), and  out  of  all  of  them  He  selected  the  'araboth  for  His  royal  throne  ; 
comp.  "  Exalt  him  who  rideth  upon  the  'arabot  "  (Ps.  Ixviii.  4).  These 
are  his  (Rabbi  Eliezer's)  words.     Note  them  likewise. 

You  must  know  that  in  Hebrew  the  collective  noun  denoting  animals  used 
for  riding  is  "  mercabah."  Instances  of  this  noun  are  not  rare.  "And 
Joseph  made  ready  his  cliariot  "  {merkabtd)  (Gen.  xlvi.  29)  ;  "  in  the  second 
chariot "  {be-mirkebft)  {ib.  xli.  43)  ;  "  Pharaoh's  chariots "  {markebot) 
(Exod.  XV.  4).  The  following  passage  especially  proves  that  the  Hebrew 
mrrkabah  denotes  a  collection  of  animals :  "  And  a  mcrkabah  came  up  and 
went  out  of  Egypt  for  six  hundred  shekels  of  silver,  and  a  horse  for  an  hun- 
dred and  fifty  "  (l  Kings  x.  21).  Hence  we  may  learn  that  mercabah  denotes 
here  four  horses.  Therefore  I  think  that  when  it  was  stated,  according  to 
the  literal  sense  of  the  words,  that  four  Hayyot  (beasts)  carry  the  Throne  of 
Glory,  our  Sages  called  this  "  mercabah  "  on  account  of  its  similarity  with 
the  mercabah  consisting  of  four  single  animals.  So  far  has  the  theme  of 
this  chapter  carried  us,  and  we  shall  be  compelled  to  make  many  further 
remarks  on  this  subject.  Here,  however,  it  is  our  object,  and  the  aim  of  all 
we  have  said,  to  show  that  "  who  rideth  upon  heaven  "  (Deut.  ixxiii.  26) 
means  "  who  sets  the  all-surrounding  sphere  in  motion,  and  turns  it  by  His 
power  and  will."  The  same  sense  is  contained  in  the  conclusion  of  that  verse  : 
"  and  in  his  excellency  the  spheres,"  i.e.,  who  in  His  excellency  moves  the 
spheres  {shelptikim).  In  reference  to  the  first  sphere,  the  'arabot,  the  verb 
"  to  ride  "  is  used,  in  reference  to  the  rest,  the  noun  "  excellency,"  because 
through  the  motion  of  the  uppermost  sphere  in  its  daily  circuit,  all  the 
spheres  move,  participating  as  parts  in  the  motion  of  the  whole  ;  and  this 
being  that  great  power  that  sets  everything  in  motion,  it  is  called  "  excel- 
lency." Let  this  subject  constantly  remain  in  your  mcmor)'  when  you  study 
what  I  am  going  to  say  ;  for  it — i.e.,  the  motion  of  the  uppermost  sphere — 
is  the  greatest  proof  for  the  existence  of  God,  as  I  shall  demonstrate.  Note 
this. 

CHAPTER  LX.XI 

Know  that  many  branches  of  science  relating  to  the  correct  solution  of  these 
problems,  were  onci'  cultivated  by  our  forefathers,  but  were  in  the  course  of 


io8  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

time  neglected,  especially  in  consequence  of  the  tyranny  which  barbarous 
nations  exercised  over  us.  Besides,  speculative  studies  were  not  open  to  all 
men,  as  we  have  already  stated  (Introd.  p.  2,  and  I.  chap,  xxxi.),  only  the 
subjects  taught  in  the  Scriptures  were  accessible  to  all.  Even  the  traditional 
Law,  as  you  are  well  aware,  was  not  originally  committed  to  writing,  in  con- 
formity with  the  rule  to  which  our  nation  generally  adhered,  "  Things  which 
I  have  communicated  to  you  orally,  you  must  not  communicate  to  others 
in  writing."  With  reference  to  the  Law,  this  rule  was  very  opportune  ;  for 
while  it  remained  in  force  it  averted  the  evils  which  happened  subsequently, 
viz.,  great  diversity  of  opinion,  doubts  as  to  the  meaning  of  written  words, 
slips  of  the  pen,  dissensions  among  the  people,  formation  of  new  sects,  and 
confused  notions  about  practical  subjects.  The  traditional  teaching  was  in 
fact,  according  to  the  words  of  the  Law,  entrusted  to  the  Great  Tribunal, 
as  we  have  already  stated  in  our  works  on  the  Talmud.  (Introd.  to  Mishneh 
Torah  and  Introd.  to  Common,  on  the  Mishnah). 

Care  having  been  taken,  for  the  sake  of  obviating  injurious  influences,  that 
the  Oral  Law  should  not  be  recorded  in  a  form  accessible  to  all,  it  was  but 
natural  that  no  portion  of  "  the  secrets  of  the  Law  "  (i.e.,  metaphysical  pro- 
blems) would  be  permitted  to  be  written  down  or  divulged  for  the  use  of 
all  men.  These  secrets,  as  has  been  explained,  were  orally  communicated 
by  a  few  able  men  to  others  who  were  equally  distinguished.  Hence  the 
principle  applied  by  our  teachers,  "  The  secrets  of  the  Law  can  only  be  en- 
trusted to  him  who  is  a  councillor,  a  cunning  artificer,  etc."  The  natural 
effect  of  this  practice  was  that  our  nation  lost  the  knowledge  of  those  impor- 
tant disciplines.  Nothing  but  a  few  remarks  and  allusions  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrashim,  like  a  few  kernels  enveloped  in  such  a 
quantity  of  husk,  that  the  reader  is  generally  occupied  with  the  husk,  and 
forgets  that  it  encloses  a  kernel. 

In  addition  you  will  find  that  in  the  few  works  composed  by  the  Geonim 
and  the  Karaites  on  the  unity  of  God  and  on  such  matter  as  is  connected 
with  this  doctrine,  they  followed  the  lead  of  the  Mohammedan  Mutakallemim, 
and  what  they  wTote  is  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  kindred  works 
of  the  Mohammedans.  It  also  happened,  that  at  the  time  when  the  Mo- 
hammedans adopted  this  method  of  the  Kalam,  there  arose  among  them  a 
certain  sect,  called  Mu'tazilah,  i.e.,  Separatists.  In  certain  things  our  scholars 
followed  the  theory  and  the  method  of  these  Mu'tazilah.  Although  another 
sect,  the  Asha'ariyah,  with  their  own  peculiar  views,  was  subsequently  estab- 
lished amongst  the  Mohammedans,  you  will  not  find  any  of  these  views  in 
the  writings  of  our  authors ;  not  because  these  authors  preferred  the  opinions 
of  the  first-named  sect  to  those  of  the  latter,  but  because  they  chanced  first 
to  become  acquainted  wath  the  theory  of  the  Mu'tazilah,  which  they  adopted 
and  treated  as  demonstrated  truth.  On  the  other  hand  our  Andalusian 
scholars  followed  the  teachings  of  the  philosophers,  from  whom  they  accepted 
those  opinions  which  were  not  opposed  to  our  own  religious  principles. 
You  will  find  that  they  did  not  adopt  any  of  the  methods  of  the  Mutakalle- 
mim ;  in  many  respects  they  approached  the  view  expressed  in  the  present 
treatise,  as  may  be  noticed  in  the  few  works  which  were  recently  written  by 
authors  of  that  school.  You  should  also  know  that  whatever  the  Moham- 
medans, that  is,  the  Mu'tazilah  and  the  Asha'ariyah,  said  on  those  subjects, 


THE    KALAM  109 

consists  in  nothing  but  theories  founded  on  propositions  which  are  taken 
from  the  works  of  those  Greek  and  Syrian  scholars  wlio  attempted  to  oppose 
the  system  of  tlie  philosophers,  and  to  refute  their  arguments.  The  following 
was  the  cause  of  that  opposition  :  At  the  time  when  the  Christian  Church 
brought  the  Greeks  and  Syrians  into  its  fold,  and  promulgated  its  well-known 
dogmas,  the  opinions  of  tlie  philosoplicrs  were  current  amongst  those  nations ; 
and  whilst  philosophy  flourished,  kings  became  defenders  of  the  Christian 
faitli.  The  learned  Greek  and  Syrian  Christians  of  the  age,  seeing  that  their 
dogmas  were  unquestionably  exposed  to  severe  attacks  from  the  existing 
philosophical  systems,  laid  the  foundation  for  this  science  of  Dogmatics ; 
they  commenced  by  putting  forth  such  propositions  as  would  support  their 
doctrines,  and  be  useful  for  the  refutation  of  opinions  opposed  to  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  Christian  religion. 

When  the  Mohammedans  caused  Arabic  translations  of  the  writings  of  the 
Philosophers  to  be  made,  those  criticisms  were  likewise  translated.  When 
the  opinions  of  John  the  Grammarian,  of  Ibn  x\di,  and  of  kindred  authors 
on  those  subjects  were  made  accessible  to  them,  they  adopted  them,  and 
imagined  that  they  had  arrived  at  the  solution  of  important  problems. 
Moreover,  they  selected  from  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  philosophers  what- 
ever seemed  serviceable  to  their  purposes,  although  later  critics  had  proved 
that  those  theories  were  false  ;  as,  e.g.,  the  theories  of  atoms  and  of  a  vacuum. 
They  believed  that  the  discussions  of  those  authors  were  of  a  general  char- 
acter, and  contained  propositions  useful  for  the  defence  of  positive  religion. 
At  a  subsequent  period  the  same  theories  were  more  fully  developed,  and 
presented  an  aspect  unknown  to  those  Theologians  of  the  Greeks  and  other 
nations  who  were  the  immediate  successors  of  the  Philosophers.  At  a  later 
time,  when  the  Mohammedans  adopted  certain  peculiar  theological  theories 
they  were  naturally  obliged  to  defend  them  ;  and  when  their  new  theories, 
again  became  the  subject  of  controversy  among  them,  each  party  laid  down 
such  propositions  as  suited  their  special  doctrine. 

Their  arguments  undoubtedly  involved  certain  principles  which  concerned 
the  three  communities— Jews,  Christians,  and  Mohammedans,  such  as  the 
creatio  ex  nihilo,  which  afforded  support  to  the  belief  in  miracles  and  to  vari- 
ous other  doctrines.  There  are,  however,  other  subjects  of  belief  which 
the  Christians  and  Mohammedans  have  undertaken  to  defend,  such  as^  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  the  theological  works  of  the  former,  and  "  the 
Word  "  in  the  works  of  some  Mohammedan  sects ;  in  order  to  prove  the 
dogmas  which  they  thus  desired  to  establish,  they  were  compelled  to  resort 
to  certain  hypotheses.  It  is  not  our  object  to  criticize  things  which  are 
peculiar  to  either  creed,  or  books  which  were  written  exclusively  in  the 
interest  of  the  one  community  or  the  other.  We  merely  maintain  that  the 
earlier  Theologians,  both  of  the  Greek  Christians  and  of  the  Mohammedans, 
when  they  kid  down  their  propositions,  did  not  investigate  the  real  pro- 
perties of  things ;  first  of  all  they  considered  what  must  be  the  properties  of 
the  things  which  should  yield  proof  for  or  against  a  certain  creed  ;  and  when 
this  was  found  they  asserted  that  the  thing  must  be  endowed  with  those 
properties  ;  then  they  employed  the  same  assertion  as  a  proof  for  the  iden- 
tical arguments  which  had  led  to  the  assertion,  and  by  which  they  either 
supported  or  refuted  a  certain  opinion.     This  course  was  foUowed  by  able 


no  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

men  who  originated  this  method,  and  adopted  it  in  their  writings.  They 
professed  to  be  free  from  preconceived  opinions,  and  to  have  been  led  to  a 
stated  result  by  actual  research.  Therefore  when  philosophers  of  a  subse- 
quent date  studied  the  same  writings  they  did  not  perceive  the  true  character 
of  the  arguments ;  on  the  contrary,  they  found  in  the  ancient  works  strong 
proofs  and  a  valuable  support  for  the  acceptance  or  the  rejection  of  certain 
opinions,  and  thus  thought  that,  so  far  as  religious  principles  were  concerned, 
there  was  no  necessity  whatever  to  prove  or  refute  any  of  their  propositions, 
and  that  the  first  Mutakallemim  had  discussed  those  subjects  with  the  sole 
object  of  defeating  certain  views  of  the  philosophers,  and  demonstrating  the 
insufficiency  of  their  proofs.  Persons  who  hold  this  opinion,  do  not  suspect 
how  much  they  are  mistaken  ;  for  the  first  Mutakallemim  tried  to  prove  a 
proposition  when  it  was  expedient  to  demonstrate  its  truth;  and  to  dis- 
prove it,  when  its  rejection  was  desirable,  and  when  it  was  contrary  to  the 
opinion  which  they  wished  to  uphold,  although  the  contradiction  might 
only  become  obvious  after  the  application  of  a  hundred  successive  proposi- 
tions. In  this  manner  the  earlier  Mutakallemim  effected  a  radical  cure  of 
the  malady  1  I  tell  you,  however,  as  a  general  rule,  that  Themistius  was 
right  in  saying  that  the  properties  of  things  cannot  adapt  themselves  to  our 
opinions,  but  our  opinions  must  be  adapted  to  the  existing  properties. 

Having  studied  the  works  of  these  Mutakallemim,  as  far  as  I  had  an  oppor- 
tunity, just  as  I  had  studied  the  writings  of  the  philosophers  according  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  I  found  that  the  method  of  all  Mutakallemim  was  the 
same  in  its  general  characteristics,  namely,  they  assume  that  the  really  exist- 
ing form  of  things  proves  nothing  at  all,  because  it  is  merely  one  of  the  various 
phases    of   the    things,  the  opposite  of   which  is  equally  admissible  to  our 
minds.     In  many  instances  these  Theologians  were  guided  by  their  imagin- 
ation, and  thought  that  they  were  following  the   dictates  of  the  intellect. 
They  set  forth  the  propositions  which  I  shall  describe  to  you,  and  demon- 
strated by  their  peculiar  mode  of  arguing  that  the  Universe  had  a  beginning. 
The  theory  of  the  creatto  ex  nihilo  being  thus  established,  they  asserted,  as  a 
logical  consequence,  that  undoubtedly  there  must  be  a  Maker  who  created 
the  Universe.     Next  they  showed  that  this  Maker  is  One,  and  from  the 
Unity  of  the  Creator  they  deduced  His  Incorporeality.     This  method  was 
adopted  by  every  Mohammedan  Mutakallem  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject, 
and  by  those  of  our  co-religionists  who  imitated  them  and  walked  in  their 
footsteps      Although  the  Mutakallemim  disagree  in  the  methods  of  their 
proofs,  and  employ  different  propositions  in  demonstrating  the  act  of  cre- 
ation or  in  rejecting  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  they  invariably  begin  with 
proving  the  creatto  ex  nihilo,  and  establish  on  that  proof  the  existence  of 
God.     I  have  examined  this  method,  and  find  it  most  objectionable.     It 
must  be  rejected,  because  all  the  proofs  for  the  creation  have  weak  points, 
and  cannot  be  considered  as  convincing  except  by  those  who  do  not  know 
the  difference    between  a  proof,  a    dialectical    argument,  and  a  sophism. 
Those  who  understand  the  force  of  the  different  methods  will  clearly  see 
that  all  the  proofs  for  the  creation  are  questionable,  because  propositions 
have  been  employed  which  have  never  been  proved.     I  think  that  the  utmost 
that  can  be  effected  by  believers  in  the  truth  of  Revelation  is  to  expose  the 
shortcomings  in  the  proofs  of  philosophers  who  hold  that  the  Universe  is 


THE  KALAM  m 

eternal,  and  if  forsooth  a  man  has  effected  this,  he  has  accomplished  a  great 
deed  !  For  it  is  well  known  to  all  clear  and  correct  thinkers  wlio  do  not  wish 
to  deceive  themselves,  that  this  question,  namely,  whether  the  Universe  has 
been  created  or  is  eternal,  cannot  be  answered  with  mathematical  certainty  ; 
here  human  intellect  must  pause.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  more  fully 
on  this  subject,  but  for  the  present  it  may  suffice  to  state  that  the  philosophers 
have  for  the  last  three  thousand  years  been  continually  divided  on  that  sub- 
ject, as  far  as  we  can  learn  from  their  works  and  the  record  of  their  opinions. 
Such  being  the  nature  of  this  theory,  how  can  we  employ  it  as  an  axiom 
and  establish  on  it  the  existence  of  the  Creator  ?  In  that  case  the  existence 
of  God  would  be  uncertain  ;  if  the  universe  had  a  beginning,  God  does  exist ; 
if  it  be  eternal,  God  does  not  exist ;  the  existence  of  God  would  therefore 
remain  either  an  open  question,  or  we  should  have  to  declare  that  the  cre- 
ation had  been  proved,  and  compel  others  by  mere  force  to  accept  this 
doctrine,  in  order  thus  to  be  enabled  to  declare  that  we  have  proved  the 
existence  of  God.  Such  a  process  is  utterly  inadmissible.  The  true  method, 
which  is  based  on  a  logical  and  indubitable  proof,  consists,  according  to  my 
opinion,  in  demonstrating  the  existence  of  God,  His  unity,  and  His  incor- 
poreality  by  such  philosophical  arguments  as  are  founded  on  the  theory  of 
the  eternity  of  the  Universe.  I  do  not  propose  this  method  as  though  I 
believed  in  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  for  I  do  not  follow  the  philosophers 
on  this  point,  but  because  by  the  aid  of  this  method  these  three  principles, 
viz.,  the  existence  of  God,  His  unity  and  His  incorporeality  can  be  fully 
proved  and  verified,  irrespectively  of  the  question  whether  the  universe  has 
had  a  beginning  or  not.  After  firmly  establishing  these  three  principles  by 
an  exact  proof,  we  shall  treat  of  the  problem  of  creation  and  discuss  it  as  fully 
as  possible.  You  are  at  liberty  to  content  yourself  with  the  declaration  of 
the  Mutakallemim,  and  to  believe  that  the  act  of  creation  has  been  demon- 
strated by  proof  ;  nor  can  there  be  any  harm  if  you  consider  it  unproven 
that  the  universe  had  a  beginning,  and  accept  this  theory  as  supported 
by  the  authority  of  the  Prophets.  Before  you  learn  our  opinion  on  prophecy, 
which  will  be  given  in  the  present  work,  do  not  ask,  how  could  the  belief  in 
prophecy  be  justified,  if  it  were  assumed  that  the  universe  was  eternal.  We 
will  not  now  expatiate  on  that  subject.  You  should,  however,  know  that  some 
of  the  propositions,  started  and  proved  by  the  Radicals,  i.e.,  the  Mutakalle- 
mim, in  order  to  prove  the  act  of  creation,  imply  an  order  of  things  contrary 
to  that  which  really  exists,  and  involve  a  complete  change  in  the  laws  of 
nature  ;  this  fact  will  be  pointed  out  to  you,  for  it  will  be  necessary  to  men- 
tion their  propositions  and  their  argumentation.  My  method,  as  far  as  I 
now  can  explain  it  in  general  terms,  is  as  follows.  The  universe  is  either 
eternal  or  has  had  a  beginning  ;  if  it  had  a  beginning,  there  must  necessarily 
exist  a  being  which  caused  the  beginning ;  this  is  clear  to  common  sense  ; 
for  a  thing  that  has  had  a  beginning,  cannot  be  the  cause  of  its  own  beginning, 
another  must  have  caused  it.  The  universe  was,  therefore,  created  by  God. 
If  on  the  other  hand  the  universe  were  eternal,  it  could  in  various  ways  be 
proved  that  apart  from  the  things  which  constitute  the  universe,  there  exists 
a  being  which  is  neither  body  nor  a  force  in  a  body,  and  which  is  one,  eternal, 
not  preceded  by  any  cause,  and  immutable.  That  being  is  God.  You  see 
that  the  proofs  for  the  Existence,  the  Unity  and  the  Incorporeality  of  God 


112  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

must  vary  according  to  the  propositions  admitted  by  us.  Only  in  this  way 
can  we  succeed  in  obtaining  a  perfect  proof,  whether  we  assume  the  eternity 
or  the  creation  of  the  universe.  For  this  reason  you  will  find  in  my  works 
on  the  Talmud,  whenever  I  have  to  speak  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
our  religion,  or  to  prove  the  existence  of  God,  that  I  employ  arguments  which 
imply  the  eternity  of  the  universe.  I  do  not  believe  in  that  eternity,  but  I 
wish  to  establish  the  principle  of  the  existence  of  God  by  an  indisputable 
proof,  and  should  not  like  to  see  this  most  important  principle  founded  on  a 
basis  which  every  one  could  shake  or  attempt  to  demolish,  and  which  others 
might  consider  as  not  being  established  at  all ;  especially  when  I  see  that  the 
proofs  of  the  philosophers  are  based  on  those  visible  properties  of  things, 
which  can  only  be  ignored  by  persons  possessing  certain  preconceived  notions, 
while  the  Mutakallemim  establish  their  arguments  on  propositions  which  are 
to  such  an  extent  contrary  to  the  actual  state  of  things  as  to  compel  these 
arguers  to  deny  altogether  the  existence  of  the  laws  of  nature.  When  I 
shall  have  to  treat  of  the  creation,  I  shall  in  a  special  chapter  prove  my 
opinion  to  some  extent,  and  shall  attain  the  same  end  which  every  one  of  the 
Mutakallemim  had  in  view,  yet  I  shall  not  contradict  the  laws  of  nature,  or 
reject  any  such  part  of  the  Aristotelean  theory  as  has  been  proved  to  be 
correct.  Even  the  most  cogent  of  the  proofs  offered  by  the  Mutakallemim 
respecting  the  act  of  creation,  has  only  been  obtained  by  reversing  the  whole 
order  of  things  and  by  rejecting  everything  fully  demonstrated  by  the  philo- 
sophers. I,  however,  shall  be  able  to  give  a  similar  proof  without  ignoring 
the  laws  of  nature  and  without  being  forced  to  contradict  facts  which  have 
been  clearly  perceived.  I  find  it  necessary  to  mention  to  you  the  general 
propositions  of  the  Mutakallemim,  by  which  they  prove  the  act  of  creation, 
the  Existence  of  God,  His  Unity  and  His  Incorporeality.  I  intend  to  explain 
their  method,  and  also  to  point  out  the  inferences  which  are  to  be  drawn 
from  each  proposition.  After  this,  I  shall  describe  those  theories  of  the 
philosophers  which  are  closely  connected  with  our  subject,  and  I  shall  then 
explain  their  method. 

Do  not  ask  me  to  prove  in  this  work  the  propositions  of  the  philosophers, 
which  I  shall  briefly  mention  to  you  ;  they  form  the  principal  part  of  Physics 
and  Metaphysics.  Nor  must  you  expect  that  I  should  repeat  the  arguments 
of  the  Mutakallemim  in  support  of  their  propositions,  with  which  they 
wasted  their  time,  with  which  the  time  of  future  generations  will  likewise 
be  wasted,  and  on  which  numerous  books  have  been  written.  Their  pro- 
positions, with  few  exceptions,  are  contradicted  by  the  visible  properties  of 
things,  and  beset  vwth  numerous  objections.  For  this  reason  they  were 
obliged  to  write  many  books  and  controversial  works  in  defence  of  their 
theories,  for  the  refutation  of  objections,  and  for  the  reconciliation  of  all 
apparent  contradictions,  although  in  reality  this  object  cannot  be  attained 
by  any  sophistical  contrivance.  As  to  the  propositions  of  the  philosophers 
which  I  shall  briefly  explain,  and  which  are  indispensable  for  the  demon- 
stration of  the  three  principles — the  Existence,  the  Unity,  and  the  Incor- 
poreality of  God,  they  will  for  the  greater  part  be  admitted  by  you  as  soon 
as  you  shall  hear  them  and  understand  their  meaning  ;  whilst  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  other  parts  reference  must  be  made  for  their  proofs  to  works  on 
Physics  and  Metaphysics,  and  if  you  direct  your  attention  to  such  passages 


THE    KALAM  113 

as  will  be  pointed  out  to  you,  you  will  find  everything  verified  that  requires 
verification. 

I  have  already  told  you  that  nothing  exists  except  God  and  this  universe, 
and  that  there  is  no  other  evidence  for  His  Existence  but  this  universe  in  its 
entirety  and  in  its  several  parts.  Consequently  the  universe  must  be  ex- 
amined as  it  is ;  the  propositions  must  be  derived  from  those  properties  of 
the  universe  which  are  clearly  perceived,  and  hence  you  must  know  its 
visible  form  and  its  nature.  Then  only  will  you  find  in  the  universe  evi- 
dence for  the  existence  of  a  being  not  included  therein.  I  have  considered 
it,  therefore,  necessary  to  discuss  first  in  a  merely  colloquial  manner,  in  the 
next  chapter,  the  totality  of  existing  things,  and  to  confine  our  remarks  to 
such  as  have  been  fully  proved  and  established  beyond  all  doubt.  In  sub- 
sequent chapters  I  shall  treat  of  the  propositions  of  the  Mutakallcmim,  and 
describe  the  method  by  which  they  explain  the  four  fundamental  prin- 
ciples. In  the  chapters  which  will  follow,  I  propose  to  expound  the  pro- 
positions of  the  philosophers  and  the  methods  applied  by  them  in  verifymg 
those  principles.  In  the  last  place,  I  shall  explain  to  you  the  method  applied 
by  me  in  proving  those  four  principles,  as  I  have  stated  to  you. 


CHAPTER  LXXII 

Know  that  this  Universe,  in  its  entirety,  is  nothing  else  but  one  individual 
being  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  outermost  heavenly  sphere,  together  with  all 
included  therein,  is  as  regards  individuality  beyond  all  question  a  single  being 
like  Said  and  Omar.  The  variety  of  its  substances — I  mean  the  substances 
of  that  sphere  and  all  its  component  parts — is  like  the  variety  of  the  sub- 
stances of  a  human  being  :  just  as,  e.g..  Said  is  one  individual,  consisting  of 
various  solid  substances,  such  as  flesh,  bones,  sinews,  of  various  humours, 
and  of  various  spiritual  elements ;  in  like  manner  this  sphere  in  its  totality 
is  composed  of  the  celestial  orbs,  the  four  elements  and  their  combinations  ; 
there  is  no  vacuum  whatever  therein,  but  the  whole  space  is  filled  up  with 
matter.  Its  centre  is  occupied  by  the  earth,  earth  is  surrounded  by  water, 
air  encompasses  the  water,  fire  envelopes  the  air,  and  this  again  is  enveloped 
by  the  fifth  substance  (quintessence).  These  substances  form  numerous 
spheres,  one  being  enclosed  within  another  so  that  no  intermediate  empty 
space,  no  vacuum,  is  left.  One  sphere  surrounds  and  closely  joins  the  other. 
All  the  spheres  revolve  with  constant  uniformity,  without  acceleration  or 
retardation  ;  that  is  to  say,  each  sphere  retains  its  individual  nature  as 
regards  its  velocity  and  the  peculiarity  of  its  motion  ;  it  does  not  move  at 
one  time  quicker,  at  another  slower.  Compared  with  each  other,  however, 
some  of  the  spheres  move  with  less,  others  with  greater  velocity.  The  outer- 
most, all-encompassing  sphere,  revolves  with  the  greatest  speed  ;  it  com- 
pletes its  revolution  in  one  day,  and  causes  everything  to  participate  in  its 
motion,  just  as  every  particle  of  a  thing  moves  when  the  entire  body  is  in 
motion  ;  for  existing  beings  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  that  sphere  as  a 
part  of  a  thing  stands  to  the  whole.  These  spheres  have  not  a  common 
centre  ;  the  centres  of  some  of  them  are  identical  with  the  centre  of  the 
Universe,  while  those  of  the  rest  are  different  from  it.     Some  of  the  spheres 


114  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

have  a  motion  independent  of  that  of  the  whole  Universe,  constantly  revolv- 
ing from  East  to  West,  while  other  spheres  move  from  West  to  East.  The 
stars  contained  in  those  spheres  are  part  of  their  respective  orbits ;  they  are 
fixed  in  them,  and  have  no  motion  of  their  own,  but  participating  in  the 
motion  of  the  sphere  of  which  they  are  a  part,  they  appear  themselves  to 
move.  The  entire  substance  of  this  revolving  fifth  element  is  unlike  the 
substance  of  those  bodies  which  consist  of  the  other  four  elements,  and  are 
enclosed  by  the  fifth  element. 

The  number  of  these  spheres  encompassing  the  Universe  cannot  possibly 
be  less  than  eighteen  ;  it  may  even  be  larger  ;  but  this  is  a  matter  for  further 
investigation.  It  also  remains  an  open  question  whether  there  are  spheres 
which,  without  moving  round  the  centre  of  the  Universe,  have  nevertheless 
a  circular  motion.  Within  that  sphere  which  is  nearest  to  us,  a  substance  is 
contained  which  is  different  from  the  substance  of  the  fifth  element ;  it  first 
received  four  primary  forms,  and  then  became  in  these  four  forms,  four 
kinds  of  matter  :  earth,  water,  air,  fire.  Each  of  the  four  elements  occupies 
a  certain  position  of  its  own  assigned  to  it  by  nature  ;  it  is  not  found  in 
another  place,  so  long  as  no  other  but  its  own  natural  force  acts  upon  it ;  it 
is  a  dead  body ;  it  has  no  life,  no  perception,  no  spontaneous  motion,  and 
remains  at  rest  in  its  natural  place.  When  moved  from  its  place  by  some 
external  force,  it  returns  towards  its  natural  place  as  soon  as  that  force  ceases 
to  operate.  For  the  elements  have  the  property  of  moving  back  to  their 
place  in  a  straight  line,  but  they  have  no  properties  which  would  cause  them 
to  remain  where  they  are,  or  to  move  otherwise  than  in  a  straight  line.  The 
rectilinear  motions  of  these  four  elements  when  returning  to  their  original 
place  are  of  two  kinds,  either  centrifugal,  viz.,  the  motion  of  the  air  and  the 
fire  ;  or  centripetal,  viz.,  the  motion  of  the  earth,  and  the  water  ;  and  when 
the  elements  have  reached  their  original  place,  they  remain  at  rest. 

The  spherical  bodies,  on  the  other  hand,  have  life,  possess  a  soul  by  which 
they  move  spontaneously ;  they  have  no  properties  by  which  they  could  at 
any  time  come  to  a  state  of  rest ;  in  their  perpetual  rotations  they  are  not 
subject  to  any  change,  except  that  of  position.  The  question  whether  they 
are  endowed  with  an  intellect,  enabling  them  to  comprehend,  cannot  be 
solved  without  deep  research.  Through  the  constant  revolution  of  the  fifth 
element,  with  all  contained  therein,  the  four  elements  are  forced  to  move 
and  to  change  their  respective  positions,  so  that  fire  and  air  are  driven  into 
the  water,  and  again  these  three  elements  enter  the  depth  of  the  earth. 
Thus  are  the  elements  mixed  together ;  and  when  they  return  to  their 
respective  places,  parts  of  the  earth,  in  quitting  their  places,  move  together 
with  the  water,  the  air  arKi  the  fire.  In  this  whole  process  the  elements  act 
and  react  upon  each  other.  The  elements  intermixed,  are  then  combined, 
and  form  at  first  various  kinds  of  vapours ;  afterwards  the  several  kinds  of 
minerals,  every  species  of  plants,  and  many  species  of  living  beings,  accord- 
ing to  the  relative  proportion  of  the  constituent  parts.  All  transient  beings 
have  their  origin  in  the  elements,  into  which  again  they  resolve  when  their 
existence  comes  to  an  end.  The  elements  themselves  are  subject  to  being 
transformed  from  one  into  another  ;  for  although  one  substance  is  common 
to  all,  substance  without  form  is  in  reality  impossible,  just  as  the  physical 
form  of  these  transient  beings  cannot  exist  without  substance.     The  forma- 


PARALLEL  BETWEEN  THE  UNIVERSE  AND  MAN  115 

tion  and  the  dissolution  of  the  elements,  together  with  the  things  composed 
of  them,  and  resolving  into  them,  follow  each  other  in  rotation.  The 
changes  of  the  finite  substance,  in  successively  receiving  one  form  after  the 
other,  may  therefore  be  compared  to  the  revolution  of  the  sphere  in  space, 
when  each  part  of  the  sphere  periodically  reappears  in  the  same  position. 

As  the  human  body  consists  both  of  principal  organs  and  of  other  members 
which  depend  on  them  and  cannot  exist  without  the  control  of  those  organs, 
so  does  the  universe  consist  both  of  principal  parts,  viz.,  the  quintessence, 
which  encompasses  the  four  elements  and  of  other  parts  which  are  subor- 
dinated and  require  a  leader,  viz.,  the  four  elements  and  the  things  composed 
of  them. 

Again,  the  principal  part  in  the  human  body,  namely,  the  heart,  is  in 
constant  motion,  and  is  the  source  of  every  motion  noticed  in  the  body  ;  it 
rules  over  the  other  members,  and  communicates  to  them  through  its  own 
pulsations  the  force  required  for  their  functions.  The  outermost  sphere 
bv  its  motion  rules  in  a  similar  way  over  all  other  parts  of  the  universe,  and 
supplies  all  things  with  their  special  properties.  Every  motion  in  the  uni- 
verse has  thus  its  origin  in  the  motion  of  that  sphere  ;  and  the  soul  of  every 
animated  being  derives  its  origin  from  the  soul  of  that  same  sphere. 

The  forces  which  according  to  this  explanation  are  communicated  by  the 
spheres  to  this  sublunary  world  are  four  in  number,  viz.,  (a)  the  force  which 
effects  the  mixture  and  the  composition  of  the  elements,  and  which  un- 
doubtedly suffices  to  form  the  minerals ;  (b)  the  force  which  supplies  every 
growing  thing  with  its  vegetative  functions ;  (c)  the  force  which  gives  to 
each  living  being  its  vitality,  and  (d)  the  force  which  endows  rational  beings 
with  intellect.  All  this  is  effected  through  the  action  of  light  and  darkness, 
which  are  regulated  by  the  position  and  the  motion  of  the  spheres  round  the 
earth. 

When  for  one  instant  the  beating  of  the  heart  is  interrupted,  man  dies, 
and  all  his  motions  and  powers  come  to  an  end.  In  a  like  manner  would  the 
whole  universe  perish,  and  everything  therein  cease  to  exist  if  the  spheres 
were  to  come  to  a  standstill. 

The  living  being  as  such  is  one  through  the  action  of  its  heart,  although 
some  parts  of  the  body  are  devoid  of  motion  and  sensation,  as,  e.g.,  the  bones, 
the  cartilage,  and  similar  parts.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  entire  uni- 
verse ;  although  it  includes  many  beings  without  motion  and  without  hfe, 
it  is  a  single  being  living  through  the  motion  of  the  sphere,  which  may  be 
compared  to  the  heart  of  an  animated  being.  You  must  therefore  consider 
the  entire  globe  as  one  individual  being  which  is  endowed  with  life,  motion, 
and  a  soul.  This  mode  of  considering  the  universe  is,  as  will  be  explained, 
indispensable,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  very  useful  for  demonstrating  the  unity  of 
God  ;  it  also  helps  to  elucidate  the  principle  that  He  who  is  One  has  created 
only  one  being. 

Again,  it  is  impossible  that  any  of  the  members  of  a  human  body  should 
exist  by  themselves,  not  connected  with  the  body,  and  at  the  same  time 
should  actually  be  organic  parts  of  that  body,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  liver 
should  exist  by  itself,  the  heart  by  itself,  or  the  flesh  by  itself.  In  like 
manner,  it  is  impossible  that  one  part  of  the  Universe  should  exist  indepen- 
dently of  the  other  parts  in  the  existing  order  of  things  as  here  considered. 


ii6  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

viz.,  that  the  fire  should  exist  without  the  co-existence  of  the  earth,  or  the 
earth  without  the  heaven,  or  the  heaven  without  the  earth. 

In  man  there  is  a  certain  force  which  unites  the  members  of  the  body, 
controls  them,  and  gives  to  each  of  them  what  it  requires  for  the  conserva- 
tion of  its  condition,  and  for  the  repulsion  of  injury — the  physicians  dis- 
tinctly call  it  the  leading  force  in  the  body  of  the  living  being  ;  sometimes 
they  call  it  *'  nature."  The  Universe  likewise  possesses  a  force  which  unites 
the  several  parts  with  each  other,  protects  the  species  from  destruction, 
maintains  the  individuals  of  each  species  as  long  as  possible,  and  endows  some 
individual  beings  with  permanent  existence.  Whether  this  force  operates 
through  the  medium  of  the  sphere  or  otherwise  remains  an  open  question. 

Again,  in  the  body  of  each  individual  there  are  parts  which  are  intended 
for  a  certain  purpose,  as  the  organs  of  nutrition  for  the  preservation  of  the 
individual,  the  organs  of  generation  for  the  preservation  of  the  species,  the 
hands  and  eyes  for  administering  to  certain  wants,  as  to  food,  etc.  ;  there 
are  also  parts  which,  in  themselves,  are  not  intended  for  any  purpose,  but 
are  mere  accessories  and  adjuncts  to  the  constitution  of  the  other  parts.  The 
peculiar  constitution  of  the  organs,  indispensable  for  the  conservation  of  their 
particular  forms  and  for  the  performance  of  their  primary  functions,  pro- 
duces, whilst  it  serves  its  special  purpose,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
substance,  other  things,  such  as  the  hair  and  the  complexion  of  the  body. 
Being  mere  accessories,  they  are  not  formed  according  to  a  fixed  rule  ;  some 
are  altogether  absent  in  many  individuals ;  and  vary  considerably  in  others. 
This  is  not  the  case  with  the  organs  of  the  body.  You  never  find  that  the 
liver  of  one  person  is  ten  times  larger  than  that  of  another  person,  but  you 
may  find  a  person  without  a  beard,  or  without  hair  on  certain  parts  of  his 
body,  or  vidth  a  beard  ten  times  longer  than  that  of  another  man.  Instances 
of  this  phenomenon,  viz.,  great  variation  as  regards  hair  and  colour,  are  not 
rare.  The  same  differences  occur  in  the  constitution  of  the  Universe. 
Some  species  exist  as  an  integral  part  of  the  whole  system  ;  these  are  con- 
stant and  follow  a  fixed  law  ;  though  they  vary  as  far  as  their  nature  permits, 
this  variation  is  insignificant  in  quantity  and  quality.  Other  species  do  not 
serve  any  purpose ;  they  are  the  mere  result  of  the  general  nature  of  tran- 
sient things,  as,  e.g.,  the  various  insects  which  arc  generated  in  dunghills, 
the  animals  generated  in  rotten  fruit,  or  in  fetid  liquids,  and  worms  gener- 
ated in  the  intestines,  etc.  In  short,  everything  devoid  of  the  power  of 
generation  belongs  to  this  class.  You  will,  therefore,  find  that  these  things 
do  not  follow  a  fixed  law,  although  their  entire  absence  is  just  as  impossible 
as  the  absence  of  different  complexions  and  of  different  kinds  of  hair  amongst 
human  beings. 

In  man  there  are  substances  the  individual  existence  of  which  is  perma- 
nent, and  there  are  other  substances  which  are  only  constant  in  the  species 
not  in  the  individuals,  as,  e.g.,  the  four  humours.  The  same  is  the  case  in 
the  Universe  ;  there  are  substances  which  are  constant  in  individuals,  such 
as  the  fifth  clement,  which  is  constant  in  all  its  formations,  and  other  sub- 
stances which  are  constant  in  the  species,  as,  e.g.,  the  four  elements  and  all 
that  is  composed  of  them. 

The  same  forces  which  operate  in  the  birth  and  the  temporal  existence 
of  the  human  being  operate  also  in  his  destruction  and  death.     This  truth 


PARALLEL  BETWEEN  THE  UNIVERSE  AND  MAN  117 

holds  good  with  regard  to  this  wliole  transient  world.     Tlic  causes  of  pro- 
duction are  at  the  same  time  the  causes  of  destruction.     This  may  be  illus- 
trated by  the  following  example.     If  the  four  forces  which  are  present  in 
every  being  sustained  by  food,  viz.,  attraction,  retention,  digestion,  and 
secretion,  were,  like  intelligent  forces,  able  to  confine  tliemsclves  to  what  is 
necessary,  and  to  act  at  the  proper  time  and  within  the  proper  limits,  man 
would  be  exempt  from  those  great  sufferings  and  the  numerous  diseases  [to 
which  he  is  exposed].     Since,  however,  such  is  not  the  case,  and  since  the 
forces  perform  their  natural  functions  without  thought  and  intelligence, 
without  any  consciousness  of  their  action,  they  necessarily  cause  dangerous 
maladies  and  great  pains,  although  they  are  the  direct  cause  of  the  birth  and 
the  temporal  existence  of  the  human  being.     This  fact  is  to  be  explained  as 
follows :    if  the  attractive  force  would  absorb  nothing  but  that  which  is 
absolutely  beneficial,  and  nothing  but  the  quantity  which  is  required,  man 
would  be  free  from  many  such  sufferings  and  disorders.     But  such  is  not  the 
case  ;   the  attractive  force  absorbs  any  humour  that  comes  within  the  range 
of  its  action,  although  such  humour  be  ill-adapted  in  quality  or  in  quantity. 
It  is,  therefore,  natural  that  sometimes  a  humour  is  absorbed  which  is  too 
warm,  too  cold,  too  thick,  or  too  thin,  or  that  too  much  humour  is  absorbed, 
and  thus  the  veins  are  choked,  obstruction  and  decay  ensue,  the  quality  of 
the  humour  is  deteriorated,  its  quantities  altered,  diseases  are  originated, 
such  as  scurvy,  leprosy,  abscess,  or  a  dangerous  illness,  such  as  cancer,  ele- 
phantiasis, gangrene,  and  at  last  the  organ  or  organs  are  destroyed.     The 
same  is  the  case  with  every  one  of  the  four  forces,  and  with  all  existing  beings. 
The  same  force  that  originates  all  things,  and  causes  them  to  exist  for  a 
certain  time,  namely,  the  combination  of  the  elements  which  are  moved  and 
penetrated  by  the  forces  of  the  heavenly  spheres,  that  sanie  cause  becomes 
throughout  the  world  a  source  of  calamities,  such  as  devastating  rain,  showers, 
snow-storms,  hail,  hurricanes,  thunder,  lightning,  malaria,  or  other  terrible 
catastrophes  by  which  a  place  or  many  places  or  an  entire  country  may  be 
laid  waste,  such  as  landslips,  earthquakes,  meteoric  showers  and  floods  issumg 
forth  from  the  seas  and  from  the  interior  of  the  earth. 

Bear  in  mind,  however,  that  in  all  that  we  have  noticed  about  the  similarity 
between  the  Universe  and  the  human  being,  nothing  would  warrant  us  to 
assert  that  man  is  a  microcosm  ;  for  although  the  comparison  in  all  its  parts 
applies  to  the  Universe  and  any  living  being  in  its  normal  state,  we  never 
heard  that  any  ancient  author  called  the  ass  or  the  horse  a  microcosm.  This 
attribute  has  been  given  to  man  alone  on  account  of  his  peculiar  faculty  of 
thinking,  I  mean  the  intellect,  viz.,  the  hylic  intellect  which  appertains  to 
no  other  living  being.  This  may  be  explained  as  follows.  An  animal  does 
not  require  for  its  sustenance  any  plan,  thought  or  scheme  ;  each  animal 
moves  and  acts  by  its  nature,  eats  as  much  as  it  can  find  of  suitable  things,  it 
makes  its  resting-place  wherever  it  happens  to  be,  cohabits  with  any  mate 
it  meets  while  in  heat  in  the  periods  of  its  sexual  excitement.  In  this  manner 
does  each  individual  conserve  itself  for  a  certain  time,  and  perpetuates  the 
existence  of  its  species  without  requiring  for  its  maintenance  the  assistance  or 
support  of  any  of  its  fellow  creatures ;  for  all  the  things  to  which  it  has  to 
attend  it  performs  by  itself.  With  man  it  is  different ;  if  an  individual  had 
a  solitary  existence,  and  were,  like   an  animal,  left  without  guidance,  he 


ii8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

would  soon  perish,  he  would  not  endure  even  one  day,  unless  it  were  by  mere 
chance,  unless  he  happened  to  find  something  upon  which  he  might  feed. 
For  the  food  which  man  requires  for  his  subsistence  demands  much  work  and 
preparation,  which  can  only  be  accomplished  by  reflection  and  by  plan  ; 
many  vessels  must  be  used,  and  many  individuals,  each  in  his  peculiar  work, 
must  be  employed.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  one  person  should  organize 
the  work  and  direct  men  in  such  a  manner  that  they  should  properly  co- 
operate, and  that  they  should  assist  each  other.  The  protection  from  heat 
in  summer  and  from  cold  in  winter,  and  shelter  from  rain,  snow,  and  wind, 
require  in  the  same  manner  the  preparation  of  many  things,  none  of  which 
can  properly  be  done  without  design  and  thought.  For  this  reason  man  has 
been  endowed  with  intellectual  faculties,  which  enable  him  to  think,  con- 
sider, and  act,  and  by  various  labours  to  prepare  and  procure  for  himself  food, 
dwelling  and  clothing,  and  to  control  every  organ  of  his  body,  causing  both 
the  principal  and  the  secondary  organs  to  perform  their  respective  functions. 
Consequently,  if  a  man,  being  deprived  of  his  intellectual  faculties,  only 
possessed  vitality,  he  would  in  a  short  time  be  lost.  The  intellect  is  the 
highest  of  all  faculties  of  living  creatures ;  it  is  very  difficult  to  comprehend, 
and  its  true  character  cannot  be  understood  as  easily  as  man's  other 
faculties. 

There  also  exists  in  the  Universe  a  certain  force  which  controls  the  whole, 
which  sets  in  motion  the  chief  and  principal  parts,  and  gives  them  the  motive 
power  for  governing  the  rest.  Without  that  force,  the  existence  of  this 
sphere,  with  its  principal  and  secondary  parts,  would  be  impossible.  It  is 
the  source  of  the  existence  of  the  Universe  in  all  its  parts.  That  force  is 
God  ;  blessed  be  His  name  !  It  is  on  account  of  this  force  that  man  is  called 
microcosm  ;  for  he  likewise  possesses  a  certain  principle  which  governs  all 
the  forces  of  the  body,  and  on  account  of  this  comparison  God  is  called  "  the 
life  of  the  Universe  "  ;  comp.  "  and  he  swore  by  the  life  of  the  Universe  " 
(Dan.  xii.  7). 

You  must  understand  that  in  the  parallel  which  we  have  drawn  between 
the  whole  universe,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  individual  man,  on  the  other, 
there  is  a  complete  harmony  in  all  the  points  which  we  mentioned  above  ; 
only  in  the  following  three  points  a  discrepancy  may  be  noticed. 

First,  the  principal  organ  of  any  living  being  which  has  a  heart,  derives  a 
benefit  from  the  organs  under  the  control  of  the  heart,  and  the  benefits  of 
the  organs  thus  become  the  benefits  of  the  heart.  This  is  not  the  case  in 
the  constitution  of  the  universe.  That  part  which  bestows  authority  or 
distributes  power,  does  not  receive  in  return  any  benefit  from  the  things 
under  its  control ;  whatever  it  grants,  is  granted  in  the  manner  of  a  generous 
benefector,  not  from  any  selfish  motive,  but  from  a  natural  generosity  and 
kindliness ;  only  for  the  sake  of  imitating  the  ways  of  the  Most  High. 

Secondly,  living  creatures  endowed  with  a  heart  have  it  within  the  body 
and  in  the  midst  thereof  ;  there  it  is  surrounded  by  organs  which  it  governs. 
Thus  it  derives  a  benefit  from  them,  for  they  guard  and  protect  it,  and  they 
do  not  allow  that  any  injury  from  without  should  approach  it.  The  reverse 
occurs  in  the  case  of  the  Universe.  The  superior  part  encompasses  the  in- 
ferior parts,  it  being  certain  that  it  cannot  be  affected  by  the  action  of  any 
other  being  ;    and  even  if  it  could  be  affected,  there  is  nobody  without  it 


PARALLEL  BETWEEN  THE  UNIVERSE  AND  MAN  119 

that  could  affect  it.  While  it  influences  all  that  is  contained  within,  it  is  not 
influenced  by  any  act  or  force  of  any  material  being.  There  is,  however, 
some  similarity  [between  the  universe  and  man]  in  this  point.  In  the  body 
of  animals,  the  organs  more  distant  from  the  principal  organ  are  of  less  im- 
portance than  those  nearer  to  it.  Also  in  the  universe,  the  nearer  the  parts 
are  to  the  centre,  the  greater  is  their  turbidness,  their  solidity,  their  inertness, 
their  dimness  and  darkness,  because  they  are  further  away  from  the  lofiicst 
element,  from  the  source  of  light  and  brightness,  which  moves  by  itself  and 
the  substance  of  which  is  the  most  rarefied  and  simplest :  from  the  outer- 
most sphere.  At  the  same  ratio  at  which  a  body  is  nearer  this  sphere,  it 
derives  properties  from  it,  and  rises  above  the  spheres  below  it. 

Thirdly.  The  faculty  of  thinking  is  a  force  inherent  in  the  body,  and  is 
not  separated  from  it,  but  God  is  not  a  force  inherent  in  the  body  of  the 
universe,  but  is  separate  from  all  its  parts.  How  God  rules  the  universe  and 
provides  for  it  is  a  complete  mystery  ;  man  is  unable  to  solve  it.  For,  on 
the  one  hand,  it  can  be  proved  that  God  is  separate  from  the  universe,  and 
in  no  contact  whatever  with  it ;  but,  on  the  other  hand.  His  rule  and  provi- 
dence can  be  proved  to  exist  in  all  parts  of  the  universe,  even  in  the  smallest. 
Praised  be  He  whose  perfection  is  above  our  comprehension. 

It  is  true,  we  might  have  compared  the  relation  between  God  and  the 
universe,  to  the  relation  between  the  absolute  acquired  intellect  and  man  ; 
it  is  not  a  power  inherent  in  the  body,  but  a  power  which  is  absolutely 
separate  from  the  body,  and  is  from  without  brought  into  contact  with  the 
body.  The  rational  faculty  of  man  may  be  further  compared  to  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  spheres,  which  are,  as  it  were,  material  bodies.  But  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  spheres,  purely  spiritual  beings,  as  well  as  man's  absolute  and 
acquired  intellect,  are  subjects  of  deep  study  and  research  ;  the  proof  of 
their  existence,  though  correct,  is  abstruse,  and  includes  arguments  which 
present  doubts,  are  exposed  to  criticism,  and  can  be  easily  attacked  by 
objectors.  We  have,  therefore,  preferred  to  illustrate  the  relation  of  God 
to  the  universe  by  a  simile  which  is  clear,  and  which  will  not  be  contradicted 
in  any  of  the  points  which  have  been  laid  down  by  us  without  any  qualifi- 
cation. The  opposition  can  only  emanate  either  from  an  ignorant  man, 
who  contradicts  truths  even  if  they  are  perfectly  obvious,  just  as  a  person 
unacquainted  with  geometry  rejects  elementary  propositions  which  have 
been  clearly  demonstrated,  or  from  the  prejudiced  man  who  deceives  himself. 
Those,  however,  who  wish  to  study  the  subject  must  persevere  in  their 
studies  until  they  are  convinced  that  all  our  observations  are  true,  and  until 
they  understand  that  our  account  of  this  universe  unquestionably  agrees 
with  the  existing  order  of  things.  If  a  man  is  willing  to  accept  this  thcor)- 
from  one  who  understands  how  to  prove  things  which  can  be  proved,  let  him 
accept  it,  and  let  him  establish  on  it  his  arguments  and  proofs.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  refuses  to  accept  without  proof  even  the  foregoing  principles, 
let  him  inquire  for  himself,  and  ultimately  he  will  find  that  they  are  correct. 
"  Lo  this,  we  have  searched  it,  so  it  is ;  hear  it,  and  know  thou  it  for  thy 
good  "  (Job  V.  27). 

After  these  preliminary  remarks,  we  will  treat  of  the  subject  winch  we 
promised  to  introduce  and  to  explain. 


120  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  LXXIII 

There  are  twelve  propositions  common  to  all  Mutakallemim,  however  dif- 
ferent their  individual  opinions  and  methods  may  be  ;  the  Mutakallemim 
require  them  in  order  to  establish  their  views  on  the  four  principles.  I  shall 
first  enumerate  these  propositions,  and  then  discuss  each  separately,  together 
with  the  inferences  which  may  be  drawn  from  it. 

Proposition  I.  All  things  are  composed  of  atoms. 

Proposition  II.  There  is  a  vacuum. 

Proposition  III.  Time  is  composed  of  time-atoms. 

Proposition  IV.  Substance  cannot  exist  without  numerous  accidents. 

Proposition  V.  Each  atom  is  completely  furnished  with  the  accidents 
(which  I  will  describe),  and  cannot  exist  without  them. 

Proposition  VI.  Accidents  do  not  continue  in  existence  during  two  time- 
atoms. 

Proposition  VII.  Both  positive  and  negative  properties  have  a  real  exist- 
ence, and  are  accidents  which  owe  their  existence  to  some  causa  efficiens. 

Proposition  VIII.  All  existing  things,  i.e.,  all  creatures,  consist  of  sub- 
stance and  of  accidents,  and  the  physical  form  of  a  thing  is  likewise  an  acci- 
dent. 

Proposition  IX.  No  accident  can  form  the  substratum  for  another  acci- 
dent. 

Proposition  X.  The  test  for  the  possibility  of  an  imagined  object  does  not 
consist  in  its  conformity  with  the  existing  laws  of  nature. 

Proposition  XL  The  idea  of  the  iniinite  is  equally  inadmissible,  whether 
the  infinite  be  actual,  potential,  or  accidental,  i.e.,  there  is  no  difference 
whether  the  infinite  be  formed  by  a  number  of  co-existing  things,  or  by  a 
series  of  things,  of  which  one  part  comes  into  existence  when  another  has 
ceased  to  exist,  in  which  case  it  is  called  accidental  infinite  ;  in  both  cases  the 
infinite  is  rejected  by  the  Mutakallemim  as  fallacious. 

Proposition  XII.  The  senses  mislead,  and  are  in  many  cases  inefficient ; 
their  perceptions,  therefore,  cannot  form  the  basis  of  any  law,  or  yield  data 
for  any  proof. 

First  Proposition. 

"  The  Universe,  that  is,  everything  contained  in  it,  is  composed  of 
very  small  parts  [atoms]  which  are  indivisible  on  account  of  their 
smallness ;  such  an  atom  has  no  magnitude;  but  when  several  atoms 
combine,  the  sum  has  a  magnitude,  and  thus  forms  a  body."  If, 
therefore,  two  atoms  were  joined  together,  each  atom  would  become 
a  body,  and  they  would  thus  form  two  bodies,  a  theory  which  in  fact 
has  been  proposed  by  some  Mutakallemim.  All  these  atoms  are  perfectly 
alike ;  they  do  not  differ  from  each  other  in  any  point.  The  Mutakalle- 
mim further  assert,  that  it  is  impossible  to  find  a  body  that  is  not  composed 
of  such  equal  atoms  which  are  placed  side  by  side.  According  to  this  view 
genesis  and  composition  arc  identical  ;  destruction  is  the  same  as  decompo- 
sition. They  do  not  use  the  term  "  destruction,"  for  they  hold  that  "  gene- 
sis "  implies  composition  and  decomposition,  motion  and  rest.  These 
atoms,  they  believe,  are  not,  as  was  supposed  by  Epicurus  and  other  Atomists 


THE    KALAM  121 

numerically  constant ;  but  arc  created  anew  whenever  it  pleases  the  Creator  ; 
their  annihilation  is  therefore  not  impossible.  Now  1  will  explain  to  you 
their  opinion  concerning  the  vacuum. 

Second  Proposition. 

On  the  vacuum.  The  original  Mutakallemim  also  believe  that  there  is  a 
vacuum,  i.e.,  one  space,  or  several  spaces  which  contain  nothing,  which  are 
not  occupied  by  anything  whatsoever,  and  which  are  devoid  of  all  substance. 
This  proposition  is  to  them  an  indispensable  sequel  to  the  first.  For,  if  the 
Universe  were  full  of  such  atoms,  how  could  any  of  them  move  ?  For  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  that  one  atom  should  move  into  another.  And  yet 
the  composition,  as  well  as  the  decomposition  of  things,  can  only  be  effected 
by  the  motion  of  atoms  !  Thus  the  Mutakallemim  are  compelled  to  assume 
a  vacuum,  in  order  that  the  atoms  may  combine,  separate,  and  move  in  that 
vacuum  which  does  not  contain  any  thing  or  any  atom. 

Third  Proposition. 

"  Time  is  composed  of  time-atoms,"  i.e.,  of  many  parts,  which  on  account 
of  their  short  duration  cannot  be  divided.  This  proposition  also  is  a  logical 
consequence  of  the  first.  The  Mutakallemim  undoubtedly  saw  how  Aris- 
totle proved  that  time,  space,  and  locomotion  are  of  the  same  nature,  that  is 
to  say,  they  can  be  divided  into  parts  which  stand  in  the  same  proportion  to 
each  other  :  if  one  of  them  is  divided,  the  other  is  divided  in  the  same  pro- 
portion. They,  therefore,  knew  that  if  time  were  continuous  and  divisible 
ad  infinitum,  their  assumed  atom  of  space  would  of  necessity  likewise  be 
divisible.  Similarly,  if  it  were  supposed  that  space  is  continuous,  it  would 
necessarily  follow,  that  the  time-element,  which  they  considered  to  be  in- 
divisible, could  also  be  divided.  This  has  been  shown  by  Aristotle  in  the 
treatise  called  Acroasis.  Hence  they  concluded  that  space  was  not  continu- 
ous, but  was  composed  of  elements  that  could  not  be  divided  ;  and  that  time 
could  likewise  be  reduced  to  time-elements,  which  were  indivisible.  An 
hour  is,  e.g.,  divided  into  sixty  minutes,  the  minute  into  sixty  seconds,  the 
second  into  sixty  parts,  and  so  on  ;  at  last  after  ten  or  more  successive  divi- 
sions by  sixty,  time-elements  are  obtained,  which  are  not  subjected  to  divi- 
sion, and  in  fact  are  indivisible,  just  as  is  the  case  with  space.  Time  would 
thus  be  an  object  of  position  and  order. 

The  Mutakallemim  did  not  at  all  understand  the  nature  of  time.  This  is 
a  matter  of  course;  for  if  the  greatest  philosophers  became  embarrassed 
when  they  investigated  the  nature  of  time,  if  some  of  them  were  altogether 
unable  to  comprehend  what  time  really  was,  and  if  even  Galenus  declared 
time  to  be  something  divine  and  incomprehensible,  what  can  be  expected  of 
those  who  do  not  regard  the  nature  of  things  ? 

Now,  mark  what  conclusions  were  drawn  from  these  three  propositions, 
and  were  accepted  by  the  Mutakallemim  as  true.  They  held  that  locomotion 
consisted  in  the  translation  of  each  ajom  of  a  body  from  one  point  to  the  next 
one  ;  accordingly  the  velocity  of  one  body  in  motion  cannot  be  greater  than 
that  of  another  body.  When,  nevertheless,  two  bodies  are  observed  to  move 
during  the  same  time  through  different  spaces,  the  cause  of  this  difference 
is  not  attributed  bv  them  to  the  fact  that  the  body  which  has  moved  through 


122  GVIDE    i'VR    ThlE    PERPLEXED 

a  larger  distance  had  a  greater  velocity,  but  to  the  circumstance  that  motion 
which  in  ordinary  language  is  called  slow,  has  been  interrupted  by  more 
moments  of  rest,  while  the  motion  which  ordinarily  is  called  quick  has  been 
interrupted  by  fewer  moments  of  rest.  When  it  is  shown  that  the  motion 
of  an  arrow,  which  is  shot  from  a  powerful  bow,  is  in  contradiction  to  their 
theory,  they  declare  that  in  this  case  too  the  motion  is  interrupted  by  mo- 
ments of  rest.  They  believe  that  it  is  the  fault  of  man's  senses  if  he  believes 
that  the  arrow  moves  continuously,  for  there  are  many  things'  which  cannot 
be  perceived  by  the  senses,  as  they  assert  in  the  twelfth  proposition.  But 
we  ask  them  :  "  Have  you  observed  a  complete  revolution  of  a  millstone  ? 
Each  point  in  the  extreme  circumference  of  the  stone  describes  a  large  circle 
in  the  very  same  time  in  which  a  point  nearer  the  centre  describes  a  small 
circle  ;  the  velocity  of  the  outer  circle  is  therefore  greater  than  that  of  the 
inner  circle.  You  cannot  say  that  the  motion  of  the  latter  was  interrupted 
by  more  moments  of  rest ;  for  the  whole  moving  body,  i.e.,  the  millstone,  is 
one  coherent  body."  They  reply,  "  During  the  circular  motion,  the  parts 
of  the  millstone  separate  from  each  other,  and  the  moments  of  rest  interrupt- 
ing the  motion  of  the  portions  nearer  the  centre  are  more  than  those  which 
interrupt  the  motion  of  the  outer  portions."  We  ask  again,  "  How  is  it  that 
the  millstone,  which  we  perceive  as  one  body,  and  which  cannot  be  easily 
broken,  even  with  a  hammer,  resolves  into  its  atoms  when  it  moves,  and  be- 
comes again  one  coherent  body,  returning  to  its  previous  state  as  soon  as  it 
comes  to  rest,  while  no  one  is  able  to  notice  the  breaking  up  [of  the  stone]  ?  " 
Again  their  reply  is  based  on  the  twelfth  proposition,  which  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  perception  of  the  senses  cannot  be  trusted,  and  thus  only  the  evi- 
dence of  the  intellect  is  admissible.  Do  not  imagine  that  you  have  seen  in 
the  foregoing  example  the  most  absurd  of  the  inferences  which  may  be  drawn 
from  these  three  propositions :  the  proposition  relating  to  the  existence  of 
a  vacuum  leads  to  more  preposterous  and  extravagant  conclusions.  Nor 
must  you  suppose  that  the  aforegoing  theory  concerning  motion  is  less  irra- 
tional than  the  proposition  resulting  from  this  theory,  that  the  diagonal  of  a 
square  is  equal  to  one  of  its  sides,  and  some  of  the  Mutakallemim  go  so 
far  as  to  declare  that  the  square  is  not  a  thing  of  real  existence.  In  short, 
the  adoption  of  the  first  proposition  would  be  tantamount  to  the  rejection 
of  all  that  has  been  proved  in  Geometry.  The  propositions  in  Geometry 
would,  in  this  respect,  be  divided  into  two  classes :  some  would  be  absolutely 
rejected  ;  e.g.,  those  which  relate  to  properties  of  the  incommensurability 
and  the  commensurability  of  lines  and  planes,  to  rational  and  irrational  lines, 
and  all  other  propositions  contained  in  the  tenth  book  of  Euclid,  and  in 
similar  works.  Other  propositions  would  appear  to  be  only  partially  correct ; 
e.g.,  the  solution  of  the  problem  to  divide  a  line  into  two  equal  parts,  if  the 
line  consists  of  an  odd  number  of  atoms ;  according  to  the  theory  of  the 
Mutakallemim  such  a  line  cannot  be  bisected.  Furthermore,  in  the  well- 
known  book  of  problems  by  the  sons  of  Shakir  are  contained  more  than  a 
hundred  problems,  all  solved  and  practically  demonstrated  ;  but  if  there 
really  were  a  vacuum,  not  one  of  these  problems  could  be  solved,  and  many 
of  the  waterworks  [described  in  that  book]  could  not  have  been  constructed. 
The  refutation  of  such  propositions  is  a  mere  waste  of  time.  I  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  treat  of  the  other  propositions  mentioned  above. 


THE    KALAM  123 

Fourth  Proposition. 
"The  accidents  of  thinj^'S  have  real  existence;  they  arc  elements  super- 
added to  the  substance  itself,  and  no  material  thing  can  be  without  them." 
Had  this  proposition  been  left  by  the  Mutakallcmim  in  this  form  it  would 
have  been  correct,  simple,  clear,  and  indisputable.  They  have,  however, 
gone  further,  asserting  that  a  substance  which  has  not  the  attribute  of  life, 
must  necessarily  have  that  of  death  ;  for  it  must  always  have  one  of  two  con- 
trasting properties.  According  to  their  opinion,  colour,  taste,  motion  or 
rest,  combination  or  separation,  etc.,  can  be  predicated  of  all  substances, 
and,  if  a  substance  have  the  attribute  of  life,  it  must  at  the  same  time  possess 
such  other  kinds  of  accidents,  as  wisdom  or  folly,  freewill  or  the  reverse, 
power  or.  weakness,  perception  or  any  of  its  opposites,  and,  in  short,  the 
substance  must  have  the  one  or  the  other  of  all  correlative  accidents  apper- 
taining to  a  living  being. 

Fifth  Proposition. 

"  The  atom  is  fully  provided  with  all  these  foregoing  accidents,  and  cannot 
exist  if  any  be  wanting."  The  meaning  of  the  proposition  is  this  :  The 
Mutakallcmim  say  that  each  of  the  atoms  created  by  God  must  have  acci- 
dents, such  as  colour,  smell,  motion,  or  rest,  except  the  accident  of  quantity  : 
for  according  to  their  opinion  an  atom  has  no  magnitude  ;  and  they  do  not 
designate  quantity  as  an  accident,  nor  do  they  apply  to  it  the  laws  of  acci- 
dents. In  accordance  with  this  proposition,  they  do  not  say,  when  an  acci- 
dent is  noticed  in  a  body,  that  it  is  peculiar  to  the  body  as  such,  but  that  it 
exists  in  each  of  the  atoms  which  form  the  constituent  elements  of  that  body. 
E.g.,  take  a  heap  of  snow ;  the  whiteness  does  not  exist  in  that  heap 
as  a  whole,  but  each  atom  of  the  snow  is  white,  and  therefore  the  aggregate 
of  these  atoms  is  likewise  white.  Similarly  they  say  that  when  a  body  moves 
each  atom  of  it  moves,  and  thus  the  whole  body  is  in  motion.  Life  likewise 
exists,  according  to  their  view,  in  each  atom  of  a  living  body.  The  same  is 
the  case  according  to  their  opinion  with  the  senses  ;  in  each  atom  of  the 
aggregate  they  notice  the  faculty  of  perception.  Life,  sensation,  intellect 
and  wisdom  are  considered  by  them  as  accidents,  like  blackness  and  whiteness, 
as  wall  be  shown  in  the  further  discussion  of  their  theory. 

Concerning  the  soul,  they  do  not  agree.  The  view  most  predominant 
among  them  is  the  following  : — The  soul  is  an  accident  existing  in  one  of 
the  atoms  of  which,  e.g.,  man  is  composed  ;  the  aggregate  is  called  a  being 
endowed  with  a  soul,  in  so  far  as  it  includes  that  atom.  Others  are  of  opinion 
that  the  soul  is  composed  of  ethereal  atoms,  which  have  a  peculiar  faculty 
by  virtue  of  which  they  constitute  the  soul,  and  that  these  atoms  are  mixed 
with  the  atoms  of  the  body.  Consequently  they  maintain  that  the  soul  is 
an  accident. 

As  to  the  intellect,  I  found  that  all  of  them  agreed  in  considering  it  to  be 
an  accident  joined  to  one  of  the  atoms  which  constitute  the  whole  of  the 
intelligent  being.  But  there  is  a  confusion  among  them  about  knowledge  ; 
they  are  uncertain  whether  it  is  an  accident  to  each  of  the  atoms  which  form 
the  knowing  aggregate,  or  whether  it  belongs  only  to  one  atom.  Both  views 
can  be  disproved  by  a  reductio  ad  absurdum,  when  the  following  facts  are 
pointed  out  to  them.     Generally  metals  and  stones  have  a  peculiar  colour, 


124  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

which  is  strongly  pronounced,  but  disappears  when  they  are  pulverised. 
\'itriol,  which  is  intensely  green,  becomes  white  dust  when  pounded  ;  this 
shows  that  that  accident  exists  only  in  the  aggregate,  not  in  the  atoms. 
This  fact  is  more  striking  in  the  following  instance  :  when  parts  of  a  living 
being  are  cut  off  they  cease  to  live,  a  proof  that  the  accident  [of  life]  belongs 
to  the  aggregate  of  the  living  being,  not  to  each  atom.  In  order  to  meet 
this  objection  they  say  that  the  accident  is  of  no  duration,  but  is  constantly 
renewed.  In  discussing  the  next  proposition  I  shall  explain  their  view  on 
this  subject. 

Sixth  Proposition. 

'*  The  accidents  do  not  exist  during  two  time-atoms." — The  sense  of  the 
proposition  is  this  :    They  believe  that  God  creates  a  substance,  and  simul- 
taneously its  accidents ;   that  the  Creator  is  incapable  of  creating  a  substance 
devoid  of  an  accident,  for  that  is  impossible  ;  that  the  essential  characteristic 
of  an  accident  is  its  incapability  of  enduring  for  two  periods,  for  two  time- 
atoms  ;   that   immediately  after  its  creation  it  is  utterly  destroyed,  and  an- 
other accident  of  the  same  kind  is  created  ;  this  again  is  destroyed  and  a  third 
accident  of  the  same  kind  is  created,  and  so  on,  so  long  as  God  is  pleased  to 
preserve  [in  that  substance]  this  kind  of  accident ;    but  He  can  at  His  will 
create  in  the  same  substance  an  accident  of  a  different  kind,  and  if  He  were 
to  discontinue  the  creation  and  not  produce  a  new  accident,  that  substance 
would  at  once  cease  to  exist.     This  is  one  of  the  opinions  held  by  the  Muta- 
kallemim  ;    it  has  been  accepted  by  most  of  them,  and  it  is  the  so-called 
"  theory  of  the  creation  of  the  accidents."     Some  of  them,  however,  and 
they  belong  to  the  sect  of  the  Mu'tazilah,  say  that  there  are  accidents  which 
endure  for  a  certain  period,  and  other  accidents  which  do  not  endure  for  two 
atoms  of  time  ;    they  do  not  follow  a  fixed  principle  in  deciding  what  class 
of  accidents  has  and  what  class  has  not  a  certain  duration.      The  object  of 
this  proposition  is  to  oppose  the  theory  that  there  exists  a  natural  force  from 
which  each  body  derives  its  peculiar  properties.     They  prefer  to  assume 
that  God  himself  creates  these  properties  without  the  intervention  of  a 
natural  force  or  of  any  other  agency  :  a  theory  which  implies  that  no  accident 
can  have  any  duration.     For  suppose  that  certain  accidents  could  endure 
for  a  certain  period  and  then  cease  to  exist,  the  question  would  naturally  be 
asked.  What  is  the  cause  of  that  non-existence  ?     They  would  not  be  satisfied 
with  the  reply  that  God  by  His  will  brought  about  this  non-existence,  and 
non-existence  does  not  at  all  require  any  agens  whatever  ;   for  as  soon  as  the 
agens  leaves  off  acting,  the  product  of  the  agens  ceases  likewise  to  exist.     This 
is  true  to  some  extent.     Having  thus  chosen  to  establish  the  theory  that 
there  does  not  exist  any  natural  force  upon  which  the  existence  or  non-exist- 
ence of  a  thing  depends,  they  were  compelled  to  assume  that  the  properties 
of  things  were  successively  renewed.     When  God  desires  to  deprive  a  thing 
of  its  existence.  He,  according  to  some  of  the  Mutakallemim,  discontinues 
the  creation  of  its  accidents,  and  eo  ipso  the  body  ceases  to  exist.     Others, 
however,  say  that  if  it  pleased  the  Almighty  to  destroy  the  world.  He  would 
create  the  accident  of  destruction,  which  would  be  without  any  substratum. 
The  destruction  of  the  Universe  would  be  the  correlative  accident  to  that  of 
existence. — In  accordance  with  this  [sixth]  proposition  they  say,  that  the 


THE    KALAM  125 

cloth  which  according  to  our  belief  we  dyed  red,  has  not  been  dyed  by  us  at 
all,  but  God  created  that  colour  in  the  cloth  when  it  came  into  contact  with 
the  red  pigment ;  we  believe  that  colour  to  have  penetrated  into  the  cloth, 
but  they  assert  that  this  is  not  the  case.  They  say  that  God  generally  acts 
in  such  a  way,  that,  e.g.,  the  black  colour  is  not  created  unless  the  cloth  is 
brought  into  contact  with  indigo  ;  but  this  blackness,  which  God  creates  in 
the  instant  when  the  cloth  touches  the  black  pigment  is  of  no  duration,  and 
another  creation  of  blackness  then  takes  place  ;  they  further  say  that  after 
the  blackness  is  gone.  He  does  not  create  a  red  or  green  colour,  but  again  a 
black  colour. 

According  to  this  principle,  the  knowledge  which  we  have  of  certain  things 

to-day,  is  not  the  same  which  we  had  of  them  yesterday  ;   that  knowledge  is 

gone,  and  another  like  it  has  been  created.     They  positively  believe  that  this 

does  take  place,  knowledge  being  an  accident.     In  like  manner  it  would 

follow  that  the  soul,  according  to  those  who  believe  that  it  is  an  accident,  is 

renewed  each  moment  in  every  animated  being,  say  a  hundred  thousand  times; 

for,  as  you  know,  time  is  composed  of  time-atoms.     In  accordance  with  this 

principle  they  assert  that  when  man  is  perceived  to  move  a  pen,  it  is  not  he 

who  has  really  moved  it ;    the  motion  produced  in  the  pen  is  an   accident 

which  God  has  created  in  the  pen  ;   the  apparent  motion  of  the  hand  which 

moves  the  pen  is  likewise  an  accident  which  God  has  created  in  the  moving 

hand ;   but  the  creative  act  of  God  is  performed  in  such  a  manner  that  the 

motion  of  the  hand  and  the  motion  of  the  pen  follow  each  other  closely  ; 

but  the  hand  does  not  act,  and  is  not  the  cause  of  the  pen's  motion  ;  for,  as 

they  say,  an  accident  cannot  pass  from  one  thing  to  another.     Some  of  the 

Mutakallemim  accordingly  contend  that  this  white  cloth,  which  is  coloured 

when  put  into  the  vessel  filled  with  indigo,  has  not  been  blackened  by  the 

indigo  ;    for  blackness  being  an  attribute  of  indigo,  does  not  pass  from  one 

object  to  another.     There  does  not  exist  any  thing  to  which  an  action  could 

be  ascribed  ;    the  real  agens  is  God,  and  He  has  [in  the  foregoing  instance] 

created  the  blackness  in  the  substance  of  the  cloth  when  it  came  into  contact 

with  the  indigo,  for  this  is  the  method  adopted  by  Him.     In  short,  most  of 

the  Mutakallemim  believe  that  it  must  never  be  said  that  one  thing  is  the 

cause  of  another  ;    some   of   them  who  assumed  causality  were  blamed  for 

doing  so.     As  regards,  however,  the  acts  of  man  their  opinions  are  divided. 

Most  of  them,  especially  the  sect  of  the  Asha'ariyah,  assume  that  when  the 

pen  is  set  in  motion  God  has  created  four  accidents,  none  of  which  is  the 

cause  of  any  of  the  rest,  they  are  only  related  to  each  other  as  regards  the 

time  of  their  co-existence,  and  have  no  other  relation  to  each  other.     The 

first  accident  is  man's  will  to  move  the  pen,  the  second  is  man's  power  to  do 

so,  the  third  is  the  bodilv  motion  itself,  i.e.,  the  motion  of  the  hand,  and  the 

fourth  is  the  motion  of  the  pen.     They  believe  that  when  a  man  has  the  will 

to  do  a  thing  and,  as  he  believes,  docs  it,  the  will  has  been  created  for  him, 

then  the  power  to  conform  to  the  will,  and  lastly  the  act  itself.     The  act  is 

not  accomplished  by  the  power  created  in  man  ;   for,  in  reality,  no  act  can 

be  ascribed  to  that  power.     The  Mu'tazilah  contend  that  man  acts  by  virtue 

of  the  power  which  lias  been  created  in  him.     Some  of  the  Asha'ariyah  assert 

that  the  power  created  in  man  participates  in  the  act,  and  is  connected  with  it, 

an  opinion  which  has  been  rejected  by  the  majority  of  them.    The  will  and  the 


126  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

power  created  in  man,  according  to  the  concurrent  belief  of  the  Mutakal- 
lemim,  together  \vith  the  act  created  in  him,  according  to  some  of  them,  are 
accidents  without  duration.  In  the  instance  of  the  pen,  God  continually 
creates  one  motion  after  the  other  so  long  as  the  pen  is  in  motion  ;  it  only 
then  ceases  to  move  when  God  has  created  in  it  the  accident  of  rest ;  and 
so  long  as  the  pen  is  at  rest,  God  continually  renews  in  it  that  accident. 
Consequently  in  every  one  of  these  moments,  i.e.,  of  the  time-atoms,  God 
creates  some  accident  in  every  existing  individual,  e.g.,  in  the  angels,  in  the 
spheres  and  in  other  things ;  this  creation  takes  place  continually  and  without 
interruption.  Such  is,  according  to  their  opinion,  the  right  interpretation 
of  the  creed  that  God  is  the  causa  efficiens.  But  I,  together  with  all  rational 
persons,  apply  to  those  theories  the  words,  "  Will  you  mock  at  Him,  as  you 
mock  at  man  ?  "  for  their  words  are  indeed  nothing  but  mockery. 

Seventh  Proposition. 

"  The  absence  of  a  property  is  itself  a  property  that  exists  in  the  body,  a 
something  superadded  to  its  substance,  an  actual  accident,  which  is  constantly 
renewed  ;  as  soon  as  it  is  destroyed  it  is  reproduced."  The  reason  why  they 
hold  this  opinion  is  this  :  they  do  not  understand  that  rest  is  the  absence  of 
motion  ;  death  the  absence  of  life  ;  that  blindness  is  the  absence  of  sight, 
and  that  all  similar  negative  properties  are  the  absence  of  the  positive  corre- 
latives. The  relation  between  motion  and  rest  is,  according  to  their  theory, 
the  same  as  the  relation  between  heat  and  cold,  namely,  as  heat  and  cold  are 
two  accidents  found  in  two  objects  which  have  the  properties  of  heat  and 
cold,  so  motion  is  an  accident  created  in  the  thing  which  moves,  and  rest  an 
accident  created  in  the  thing  which  rests ;  it  does  not  remain  in  existence 
during  two  consecutive  time-atoms,  as  we  have  stated  in  treating  of  the  pre- 
vious proposition.  Accordingly,  when  a  body  is  at  rest,  God  has  created  the  rest 
in  each  atom  of  that  body,  and  so  long  as  the  body  remains  at  rest  God  continu- 
ally renews  that  property.  The  same,  they  believe,  is  the  case  with  a  man's 
wisdom  and  ignorance  ;  the  latter  is  considered  by  them  as  an  actual  accident, 
which  is  subject  to  the  constant  changes  of  destruction  and  creation,  so  long 
as  there  remains  a  thing  of  which  such  a  man  is  ignorant.  Death  and  life 
are  likewise  accidents,  and  as  the  Mutakallemim  distinctly  state,  life  is  con- 
stantly destroyed  and  renewed  during  the  whole  existence  of  a  living  being  ; 
when  God  decrees  its  death,  He  creates  in  it  the  accident  of  death  after  the 
accident  of  life,  which  does  not  continue  during  two  time-atoms,  has  ceased 
to  exist.     All  this  they  state  clearly. 

The  logical  consequence  of  this  proposition  is  that  the  accident  of  death 
created  by  God  instantly  ceases  to  exist,  and  is  replaced  by  another  death 
which  again  is  created  by  God  ;  otherwise  death  could  not  continue.  Death 
is  thus  continually  created  in  the  same  manner  as  life  is  renewed  every 
moment.  But  I  should  wish  to  know  how  long  God  continues  to  create 
death  in  a  dead  body.  Does  He  do  so  whilst  the  form  remains,  or  whilst  one 
of  the  atoms  exists  ?  For  in  each  of  the  atoms  of  the  body  the  accident  of 
death  which  God  creates  is  produced,  and  there  are  to  be  found  teeth  of 
persons  who  died  thousands  of  years  ago  ;  we  see  that  those  teeth  have  not 
been  deprived  of  existence,  and  therefore  the  accident  of  death  has  during 
all  these  thousands  of  years  been  renewed,  and  according  to  the  opinion 


THE  KALAM 


127 


prevailing  amongst  those  theorists,  death  was  continually  replaced  by  death. 
Some  of  the  Mu'tazilah  hold  that  there  are  cases  in  which  the  absence  of  a 
physical  property  is  not  a  real  property,  that  weariness  is  the  absence  of 
strength,  and  ignorance  the  absence  of  knowledge  ;  but  this  cannot  be  said 
in  every  case  of  negative  properties :  it  cannot  be  said  that  darkness  is  the 
mere  absence  of  light,  or  that  rest  is  the  absence  of  motion.  Some  negative 
properties  are  thus  considered  by  them  as  having  a  real  existence,  while  other 
negative  properties  are  considered  as  non-existing,  just  as  suits  their  belief. 
Here  they  proceed  in  the  same  manner  as  they  proceed  respecting  the  dura- 
tion of  accidents,  and  they  contend  that  some  accidents  exist  a  long  time, 
and  other  accidents  do  not  last  two  time-atoms.  Their  sole  object  is  to 
fashioa  the  Universe  according  to  their  peculiar  opinions  and  beliefs. 

Eighth  Proposition. 

"  There  exists  nothing  but  substance  and  accident,  and  the  physical  form 
of  things  belong  to  the  class  of  accidents."  It  is  the  object  of  this  proposition 
to  show  that  all  bodies  are  composed  of  similar  atoms,  as  we  have  pointed  out 
in  explaining  the  first  proposition.  The  difference  of  bodies  from  each  other 
is  caused  by  the  accidents,  and  by  nothing  else.  Animality,  humanity,  sen- 
sibility, and  speech,  are  denoted  as  accidents  like  blackness,  whiteness,  bitter- 
ness, and  sweetness,  and  the  difference  between  two  individuals  of  two  classes 
is  the  same  as  the  difference  of  two  individuals  of  the  same  class.  Also  the 
body  of  the  heaven,  the  body  of  the  angels,  the  body  of  the  Divine  Throne — 
such  as  it  is  assumed  to  be — the  body  of  anything  creeping  on  the  earth,  and 
the  body  of  any  plant,  have  one  and  the  same  substance  ;  they  only  differ  in 
the  peculiarity  of  the  accidents,  and  in  nothing  else  r  the  substance  of  all 
things  is  made  up  of  equal  atoms. 

Ninth  Proposition. 

"  None  of  the  accidents  form  the  substratum  of  another  accident  ;  it 
cannot  be  said.  This  is  an  accident  to  a  thing  which  is  itself  an  accident  to  a 
substance.  All  accidents  are  directly  connected  with  the  substance."  The 
Mutakallemim  deny  the  indirect  relation  of  the  accident  to  the  substance, 
because  if  such  a  relation  were  assumed  it  would  follow  that  the  second  acci- 
dent could  only  exist  in  the  substance  after  another  accident  had  preceded 
it,  a  conclusion  to  which  they  would  object  even  with  regard  to  some  special 
accidents  ;  they  prefer  to  show  that  these  accidents  can  exist  in  every  possible 
substance,  although  such  substance  is  not  determined  by  any  other  accident  ; 
for  they  hold  that  all  the  accidents  collectively  determine  the  thing.  They 
advance  also  another  proof  [in  support  of  this  proposition],  namely  :  The 
substratum  which  is  the  bearer  of  certain  attributes  must  continue  to  exist 
for  a  certain  time  ;  how,  then,  could  the  accident,  which— according  to  their 
opinion — does  not  remain  in  existence  for  two  moments,  become  the  sub- 
stratum of  something  else  ? 

Tenth  Proposition. 

This  proposition  concerns  the  theory  of  "admissibility,"  which  is  men- 
tioned by  the  Mutakallemim,  and  forms  the  principal  support  of  their  doc- 
trine.    Mark  its  purport :     they  observe  that  everything  conceived  by  tlic 


128  GVIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

imagination  is  admitted  by  the  intellect  as  possible  ;  e.g.,  that  the  terrestrial 
globe  should  become  the  all-encompassing  sphere,  or  that  this  sphere  should 
become  the  terrestrial  globe  ;  reason  does  not  find  here  an  impossibility ; 
or  that  the  sphere  of  fire  should  move  towards  the  centre,  and  the  sphere  of 
earth  towards  the  circumference.  Human  intellect  does  not  perceive  any 
reason  why  a  body  should  be  in  a  certain  place  instead  of  being  in  another. 
In  the  same  manner  they  say  that  reason  admits  the  possibility  that  an  ex- 
isting being  should  be  larger  or  smaller  than  it  really  is,  or  that  it  should  be 
different  in  form  and  position  from  what  it  really  is ;  e.g.,  a  man  might  have 
the  height  of  a  mountain,  might  have  several  heads,  and  fly  in  the  air  ;  or 
an  elephant  might  be  as  small  as  an  insect,  or  an  insect  as  huge  as  an  elephant. 
This  method  of  admitting  possibilities  is  applied  to  the  whole  Universe. 
Whenever  they  afiirm  that  a  thing  belongs  to  this  class  of  admitted  possi- 
bilities, they  say  that  it  can  have  this  form,  and  that  it  is  also  possible  that  it 
be  found  differently,  and  that  the  one  form  is  not  more  possible  than  the 
other  ;  but  they  do  not  ask  whether  the  reality  confirms  their  assumption. 
They  say  that  the  thing  which  exists  with  certain  constant  and  permanent 
forms,  dimensions,  and  properties,  only  follows  the  direction  of  habit,  just 
as  the  king  generally  rides  on  horseback  through  the  streets  of  ,the  city,  and 
is  never  found  departing  from  this  habit;  but  reason  does  not  find  it  impos- 
sible that  he  should  walk  on  foot  through  the  place  ;  there  is  no  doubt  that 
he  may  do  so,  and  this  possibility  is  fully  admitted  by  the  intellect.  Simi- 
larly, earth  moves  towards  the  centre,  fire  turns  away  from  the  centre  ;  fire 
causes  heat,  water  causes  cold,  in  accordance  with  a  certain  habit ;  but  it  is 
logically  not  impossible  that  a  deviation  from  this  habit  should  occur,  namely, 
that  fire  should  cause  cold,  move  downward,  and  still  be  fire ;  that  the  water 
should  cause  heat,  move  upward,  and  still  be  water.  On  this  foundation 
their  whole  fabric  is  constructed.  They  admit,  however,  the  impossi- 
bility of  two  opposite  properties  coexisting  at  the  same  time  in  one  sub- 
stance. This  is  impossible  ;  reason  would  not  admit  this  possibility.  Again, 
reason  does  not  admit  the  possibility  of  a  substance  existing  without  an 
accident,  or  an  accident  existing  without  a  substance,  a  possibility  admitted 
by  some  of  the  Mutakallemim.  It  is  also  impossible  that  a  substance  should 
become  an  accident,  that  an  accident  should  become  a  substance,  or  that  one 
substance  should  penetrate  another.  They  admit  that  reason  rejects  all 
these  things  as  impossible.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  no  notion  whatever  can 
be  formed  of  those  things  which  they  describe  as  impossible  ;  whilst  a  notion 
can  be  formed  of  those  things  which  they  consider  as  possible.  The  philo- 
sophers object  to  this  method,  and  say,  You  call  a  thing  impossible  because 
it  cannot  be  imagined,  or  possible  because  it  can  be  imagined  ;  and  thus  you 
consider  as  possible  that  which  is  found  possible  by  imagination,  not  by  the 
intellect,  consequently  you  determine  that  a  thing  is  necessary,  possible,  or 
impossible  in  some  instances,  by  the  aid  of  the  imagination — not  by  the  in- 
tellect— and  in  other  instances  by  the  ordinary  common  sense,  as  Abu  Nasr 
says  in  speaking  of  that  which  the  Mutakallemim  call  intellect.  It  is  clear 
that  they  describe  as  possible  that  which  can  be  imagined,  whether  the  reality 
correspond  to  it  or  not,  and  as  impossible  that  which  cannot  be  imagined. 
This  proposition  can  only  be  established  by  the  nine  aforementioned  pro- 
positions, and  no  doubt  these  were  exclusively  required  for  the  support  of 


THE    KALAM  i2q 

this  proposition.  This  you  will  see  clearly  when  I  shall  show  and  explain  to 
you  some  important  parts  of  this  theory,  which  I  shall  now  introduce  in  the 
form  of  a  discussion  supposed  to  have  taken  place  between  a  Mutakallcm 
and  a  philosopher. 

The  Mutakallcm  said  to  the  philosopher  :  What  is  the  reason  that  we  find 
the  substance  of  iron  extremely  hard  and  strong,  with  a  dark  colour  ;  the 
substance  of  cream,  on  the  other  hand,  extremely  soft  and  white  ?  The 
philosopher  replied  as  follows :  All  physical  bodies  have  two  kinds  of  acci- 
dents :  those  which  concern  their  substance,  as,  e.g.,  the  health  and  the 
illness  of  a  man  ;  and  those  which  concern  their  form,  as,  e.g.,  the  astonish- 
ment and  laughter  of  a  man.  The  substances  of  compound  bodies  differ  very 
much  in  their  ultimate  form,  according  to  the  difference  of  the  forms  peculiar 
to  each  component  substance.  Hence  the  substance  of  iron  has  become  in  its 
properties  theoppositeof  the  substance  of  cream,  and  this  difference  is  attended 
by  the  difference  of  accidents.  You  notice,  therefore,  hardness  in  the  one, 
and  softness  in  the  other :  two  accidents,  whose  difference  results  from  the 
difference  which  exists  in  the  forms  of  the  substances ;  while  the  darkness 
and  the  whiteness  are  accidents  whose  divergence  corresponds  to  that  of  the 
two  substances  in  their  ultimate  condition.  The  Mutakallcm  refuted  this 
reply  by  means  of  his  propositions,  as  I  am  now  going  to  state : — There 
does  not  exist  a  form  which,  as  you  believe,  modifies  the  substance,  and  thus 
causes  substances  to  be  different  from  each  other ;  this  difference  is  exclu- 
sively effected  by  the  accidents — according  to  the  theory  of  the  Kalam,  which 
we  mentioned  in  explaining  the  eighth  proposition.  He  then  continued 
thus :  There  is  no  difference  between  the  substance  of  iron  and  that  of 
cream  ;  all  things  are  composed  of  the  same  kind  of  atoms. — We  explained 
the  view  of  the  Mutakallemim  on  this  point  in  treating  of  the  first  proposi- 
tion, the  logical  consequences  of  which  are,  as  we  have  shown,  the  second  and 
the  third  propositions  ;  they  further  require  the  twelfth  proposition,  in 
order  to  establish  the  theory  of  atoms.  Nor  do  they  admit  that  any  acci- 
dents determine  the  nature  of  a  substance,  or  predispose  it  to  receive  certain 
other  accidents  ;  for,  according  to  their  opinion,  an  accident  cannot  be  the 
substratum  of  another  accident,  as  we  have  shown  in  explaining  the  ninth 
proposition  ;  nor  can  it  have  any  duration,  according  to  the  sixth  proposi- 
tion. When  the  Mutakallemim  have  established  all  that  they  wsh  to  infer 
from  these  propositions,  they  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  component 
atoms  of  cream  and  of  iron  are  alike. — The  relation  of  each  atom  to  each  of 
the  accidents  is  the  same  ;  one  atom  is  not  more  adapted  than  another  to 
receive  a  certain  accident ;  and  as  a  certain  atom  is  not  more  fitted  to  move 
than  to  rest,  so  one  atom  is  not  more  apt  than  another  to  receive  the  accident 
of  life,  of  reason,  of  sensation.  It  is  here  of  no  moment  whether  a  thing 
contains  a  larger  or  smaller  quantity  of  atoms,  for,  according  to  the  view  of 
the  Mutakallemim,  which  we  explained  in  treating  of  the  fifth  proposition, 
every  accident  [of  a  thing]  exists  in  each  of  its  atoms.  All  these  propositions 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  a  human  being  is  not  better  constituted  to  be- 
come wise  than  the  bat,  and  establish  the  theory  of  admissibility  expressed 
in  this  [tenth]  proposition.  Every  effort  was  made  to  demonstrate  this  pro- 
position, because  it  is  the  best  means  for  proving  anything  they  like,  as  will 
be  explained. 


130  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

XoTE.— Mark,  O  reader,  that  if  you  know  the  nature  of  the  soul  and  its 
properties,  and  if  you  have  a  correct  notion  of  everything  which  concerns  the 
soul,  you  will  observe  that  most  animals  possess  imagination.  As  to  the 
higher  class  of  animals,  that  is,  those  which  have  a  heart,  it  is  obvious  that 
they  have  imagination.  Man's  distinction  does  not  consist  in  the  possession 
of  imagination,  and  the  action  of  imagination  is  not  the  same  as  the  action  of 
the  intellect,  but  the  reverse  of  it.  For  the  intellect  analyses  and  divides 
the  component  parts  of  things,  it  forms  abstract  ideas  of  them,  represents 
them  in  their  true  form  as  well  as  in  their  causal  relations,  derives  from  one 
object  a  great  many  facts,  which— for  the  intellect— totally  differ  from  each 
other,  just  as  two  human  individuals  appear  different  to  the  imagination  ; 
it  distinguishes  that  which  is  the  property  of  the  genus  from  that  which  is 
peculiar  to  the  individual, — and  no  proof  is  correct,  unless  founded  on  the 
former  ;  the  intellect  further  determines  whether  certain  qualities  of  a  thing 
are  essential  or  non-essential.  Imagination  has  none  of  these  functions.  It 
only  perceives  the  individual,  the  compound  in  that  aggregate  condition 
in  which  it  presents  itself  to  the  senses ;  or  it  combines  things  which  exist 
separately,  joins  some  of  them  together,  and  represents  them  all  as  one  body 
or  as  a  force  of  the  body.  Hence  it  is  that  some  imagine  a  man  with  a  horse's 
head,  with  wings,  etc.  This  is  called  a  fiction,  a  phantasm  ;  it  is  a  thing  to 
which  nothing  in  the  actual  world  corresponds.  Nor  can  imagination  in  any 
way  obtain  a  purely  immaterial  image  of  an  object,  however  abstract  the 
form  of  the  image  may  be.  Imagination  yields  therefore  no  test  for  the 
reality  of  a  thing. 

Hear  what  profit  we  derive  from  the  preliminary  disciplines,  and  how 
excellent  the  propositions  are  which  we  learn  through  them.  Know  that 
there  are  certain  things,  which  would  appear  impossible,  if  tested  by  man's 
imagination,  being  as  inconceivable  as  the  co-existence  of  two  opposite 
properties  in  one  object ;  yet  the  existence  of  those  same  things,  which  cannot 
be  represented  by  imagination,  is  nevertheless  established  by  proof,  and 
attested  by  their  reality.  E.g.,  Imagine  a  large  globe,  of  any  magnitude  you 
like,  even  as  large  as  the  all-encompassing  sphere ;  further  an  axis  passing 
through  the  centre,  and  two  persons  standing  on  the  two  extremities  of  the 
axis  in  such  a  manner  that  their  feet  are  in  the  same  straight  line  with  the 
axis,  which  may  be  either  in  the  plane  of  the  horizon  or  not ;  in  the  first  case 
both  persons  would  fall,  in  the  second  case  one,  namely  the  one  who  stands 
on  the  lower  extremit)-  would  fall,  the  other  would  remain  standing,  as  far 
as  our  imagination  can  perceive.  It  has  however,  already  been  proved  that 
the  earth  has  the  form  of  a  globe,  that  it  is  inhabited  on  both  extremities  of 
a  certain  diameter,  that  both  the  inhabitants  have  their  heads  towards  the 
heaven,  and  their  legs  towards  each  other,  and  yet  neither  can  possibly 
fall,  nor  can  it  be  imagined  ;  for  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  the  one 
extremity  is  above,  the  other  below  ;  but  the  term  "  above  "  and  "  below  " 
apply  to  both  of  them  as  regards  their  relative  position  to  each  other. 
Similarly  it  has  been  proved  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  book  on  Conic 
Sections,  that  two  lines,  which  at  first  are  at  a  certain  distance  from  each 
other,  may  approach  each  other  in  the  same  proportion  as  they  are  produced 
further,  and  yet  would  never  meet,  even  if  they  were  produced  to  infinity, 
although  they  are  observed  to  be  consuntly  converging.     This  is  a  fact 


THE    KALAM 


»3' 


which  cannot  easily  be  conceived,  and  which  does  not  come  within  the  score 
of  imagination.  Of  these  two  lines  the  one  is  straight,  the  other  curved,  as 
stated  in  the  aforementioned  book.  It  has  consequently  been  proved  that 
things  which  cannot  be  perceived  or  imagined,  and  which  would  be  found 
impossible  if  tested  solely  by  imagination,  are  nevertheless  in  real  existence. 
The  non-existence  of  things  which  are  represented  by  imagination  as  possible 
has  likewise  been  established  by  proof,  e.g.,  the  corporeality  of  God,  and  His 
existence  as  a  force  residing  in  a  body.  Imagination  perceives  nothing  ex- 
cept bodies,  or  properties  inherent  in  bodies. 

It  has  thus  been  clearly  shown  that  in  man  exists  a  certain  faculty  which  is 
entirely  distinct  from  imagination,  and  by  which  the  necessary,  the  possible, 
and  the  impossible  can  be  distinguished  from  each  other.  This  inquiry  is 
most  useful.  It  is  of  the  greatest  profit  to  him  who  desires  to  guard  himself 
against  the  errors  of  men  guided  by  imagination !  Do  not  think  that  the 
Mutakallemim  ignore  this  altogether ;  to  some  extent  they  do  take  it  into 
consideration  ;  they  know  it,  and  call  that  which  can  be  imagined  without 
having  reality — as,  e.g.,  the  corporeality  of  God — a  phantom  and  a  fancy  ; 
they  state  frequently  that  such  phantoms  are  not  real.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  they  advance  the  first  nine  propositions  and  estaWish  on  them  the  proof 
of  the  tenth,  according  to  which  all  those  imaginable  things  which  they  wish 
to  admit  as  possible  are  really  possible,  because  of  the  similarity  of  all  atoms 
and  the  equality  of  all  accidents  as  regards  their  accidentality,  as  we  have 
explained. 

Consider,  O  reader,  and  bear  in  mind  that  this  requires  deep  research. 
For  there  are  certain  notions  which  some  believe  to  be  founded  on  reason, 
while  others  regard  them  as  mere  fictions.  In  such  cases  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  find  something  that  could  show  the  difference  between  conceptions 
of  the  intellect  and  mere  imaginary  fancies.  When  the  philosopher,  in  his 
way  of  expressing  himself,  contends,  "  Reality  is  my  evidence  ;  by  its  guid- 
ance I  examine  whether  a  thing  is  necessary,  possible,  or  impossible,"  the 
religionist  replies,  "  This  is  exactly  the  difference  between  as ;  that  which 
actually  exists,  has,  according  to  my  view,  been  produced  by  the  will  of  the 
Creator,  not  by  necessity ;  just  as  it  has  been  created  with  that  special  pro- 
perty, it  might  have  been  created  with  any  other  property,  unless  the  im- 
possibility which  you  postulate  be  proved  by  a  logical  demonstration." 

About  this  admissibility  (of  imaginable  things)  I  shall  have  to  say  more, 
and  I  shall  return  to  it  in  various  parts  of  this  tieatise  ;  for  it  is  not  a  subject 
which  should  be  rejected  in  haste  and  on  the  spur  of  the  moment. 

Eleventh  Proposition. 

"  The  existence  of  the  infinite  is  in  every  respect  impossible."  The 
following  is  an  explanation  of  this  proposition.  The  impossibility  of  the 
existence  of  an  infinite  body  has  been  clearly  demonstrated  ;  the  same  can 
be  said  of  an  infinite  number  of  bodies,  though  each  of  them  be  finite,  if 
these  beings,  infinite  in  number,  exist  at  the  same  time  ;  equally  impossible 
is  the  existence  of  an  infinite  series  of  causes,  namely,  that  a  certain  thing 
should  be  the  cause  of  another  thing,  but  itself  the  effect  of  another  cause, 
which  again  is  the  result  of  another  cause,  and  so  on  to  infinity,  or  that  things 
in  an  infinite  series,  either  bodies  or  ideals,  should  be  in  actual  existence,  and 


132  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

in  causal  relation  to  each  other.  This  causal  relation  is  the  essential  order  of 
nature,  in  which,  as  has  been  fully  proved,  the  infinite  is  impossible.  As 
regards  the  virtual  and  the  accidental  existence  of  the  infinite,  it  has  been 
established  in  some  cases ;  it  has  been  proved,  e.g.,  that  a  body  can  virtually 
be  divided  ad  infinitum,  also  that  time  can  be  divided  ad  infinitum  ;  in  other 
cases  it  is  still  an  open  question,  as,  e.g.,  the  existence  of  the  infinite  in  suc- 
cession, which  is  called  the  accidental  infinite,  i.e.,  a  series  of  things  in  which 
one  thing  comes  forth  when  the  other  is  gone,  and  this  again  in  its  turn 
succeeded  a  thing  which  had  ceased  to  exist,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum.  This 
subject  requires  deep  research. 

Those  who  boast  that  they  have  proved  the  eternity  of  the  Universe  say 
that  time  is  infinite  ;  an  assertion  which  is  not  necessarily  erroneous ;  for 
only  when  one  atom  has  ceased  to  exist,  the  other  follows.  Nor  is  it  abso- 
lutely wrong,  when  they  assert,  that  the  accidents  of  the  substance  succeed 
each  other  in  an  infinite  series,  for  these  accidents  do  not  co-exist,  but  come 
in  succession  one  after  the  other,  and  the  impossibility  of  the  infinite  in  that 
case  has  not  been  proved.  The  Mutakallemim,  however,  make  no  difference 
between  the  existence  of  an  infinite  body  and  the  divisibility  of  a  body  or 
of  time  ad  infinitum,  between  the  co-existence  of  an  infinite  number  of 
things,  as  e.g.,  the  individual  human  beings  who  exist  at  present,  and  the 
infinite  number  of  beings  successively  existing,  as,  e.g.,  Reuben  the  son  of 
Jacob,  and  Jacob  the  son  of  Isaac,  and  Isaac  the  son  of  Abraham,  and  so  on 
to  infinity.  This  is  according  to  their  opinion  as  inadmissible  as  the  first 
case  ;  they  believe  these  four  forms  of  the  infinite  to  be  quite  equal.  Some 
of  the  Mutakallemim  endeavour  to  establish  their  proposition  concerning 
the  last  named  form  of  the  infinite,  and  to  demonstrate  its  impossibility  by 
a  method  which  I  shall  explain  in  this  treatise ;  others  say  that  this  impossi- 
bility is  a  self-evident  axiom  and  requires  no  further  proof.  But  if  it  were 
undoubtedly  wrong  to  assume  that  an  infinite  number  of  things  can  exist 
in  succession,  although  that  link  of  the  series  which  exists  at  present  is  finite, 
the  inadmissibility  of  the  eternity  of  the  Universe  would  be  equally  self- 
evident,  and  would  not  require  for  its  proof  any  other  proposition.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  place  for  investigating  the  subject. 

Twelfth  Proposition. 

"  The  senses  are  not  always  to  be  trusted."  For  two  reasons  the  Muta- 
kallemim find  fault  with  the  perception  of  the  senses.  First,  the  senses  are 
precluded  from  perceiving  many  objects,  either  on  account  of  the  smallness 
of  the  objects — this  is  the  case  with  the  atoms,  as  we  have  already  stated — 
or  on  account  of  the  remoteness  of  the  objects  from  the  person  who  desires 
to  perceive  them  ;  e.g.,  we  cannot  see,  hear,  or  smell  at  a  distance  of  many 
miles  ;  nor  do  we  perceive  the  motion  of  the  heavens.  Secondly,  the  senses 
misapprehend  the  objects  of  their  perception  :  a  large  object  appears  small 
from  a  distance  ;  a  small  object  immersed  in  water  appears  larger  ;  a  crooked 
thing  appears  straight  when  partly  placed  in  water,  and  partly  out  of  it ; 
things  appear  yellow  to  a  person  suffering  from  jaundice  ;  sweet  things  are 
bitter  to  him  whose  tongue  has  imbibed  red  gall ;  and  they  mention  many 
other  things  of  this  kind.  Therefore  they  say,  we  cannot  trust  our  senses 
so  far  as  to  cstabhsh  any  proof  on  their  perceptions.     You  must  not  believe 


THE    KALAM  ,33 

that  the  Mutakallemim  had  no  purpose  in  agreeing  upon  this  proposition, 
or  as  most  of  the  later  adherents  of  that  school  afhrm,  that  the  first  Muta- 
kallemim had  no  ulterior  object  in  endeavouring  to  prove  the  existence  of 
atoms.  On  the  contrary,  every  proposition  here  mentioned  is  indispensable  ; 
if  one  of  these  be  rejected,  the  whole  theory  falls  to  the  ground.  The  last- 
mentioned  proposition  is  of  particular  importance ;  for  when  our  senses 
perceive  things  by  which  any  of  the  foregoing  propositions  are  confuted,  the 
Mutakallemim  say  that  no  notice  should  be  taken  of  the  perception  of  the 
senses  so  long  as  the  proposition  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  in- 
tellect, and  established  (as  they  believe)  by  proof.  Thus  they  say  that  the 
continuous  motion  is  interrupted  by  moments  of  rest ;  that  the  millstone 
in  its  motion  is  broken  into  atoms  ;  that  the  white  colour  of  a  garment 
ceases  to  exist,  and  another  whiteness  comes  in  its  stead.  All  these  theories 
are  contrary  to  what  the  eye  perceives,  and  many  inferences  are  drawn  from 
the  assumed  existence  of  a  vacuum,  all  of  which  are  contradicted  by  the 
senses.  The  Mutakallemim,  however,  meet  these  objections  by  saying, 
whenever  they  can  do  so,  that  the  perception  of  these  things  is  wdthheld  from 
the  senses ;  in  other  instances  they  maintain  that  the  contradiction  has  its 
source  in  the  deceptive  character  of  the  senses.  You  know  that  this  theory 
is  very  ancient,  and  was  the  pride  of  the  sophists,  who  asserted  that  they 
themselves  were  its  authors ;  this  is  stated  by  Galenus  in  his  treatise  on 
natural  forces ;  and  you  know  well  what  he  says  of  those  who  will  not  admit 
the  evidence  of  the  senses. 

Having  discussed  these  propositions,  I  now  proceed  to  explain  the  theory 
of  the  Mutakallemim  concerning  the  above-mentioned  four  problems. 

CHAPTER  LXXIV 

In  this  chapter  will  be  given  an  outline  of  the  proofs  by  which  the  Muta- 
kallemim attempt  to  demonstrate  that  the  universe  is  not  eternal.  You  must 
of  course  not  expect  that  I  shall  quote  their  lengthy  arguments  verbatim  ;  I 
only  intend  to  give  an  abstract  of  each  proof,  to  show  in  what  way  it  helps 
to  establish  the  theory  of  the  creatio  ex  nihilo  or  to  confute  the  eternity  of 
the  universe,  and  briefly  to  notice  the  propositions  they  employed  in  support 
of  their  theory.  If  you  were  to  read  their  well-known  and  voluminous 
writings,  you  would  not  discover  any  arguments  wdth  which  they  support 
their  view  left  unnoticed  in  the  present  outlme,  but  you  might  find  there 
greater  copiousness  of  words  combined  with  more  grace  and  elegance  of 
style  ;  frequently  they  employ  rhyme,  rhythm,  and  poetical  diction,  and 
sometimes  mysterious  phrases  which  perhaps  are  intended  to  startle  persons 
listening  to  their  discourses,  and  to  deter  those  who  might  otherwise  criticize 
them.  You  would  also  find  many  repetitions ;  questions  propounded  and, 
as  they  believe,  answered,  and  frequent  attacks  on  those  who  differ  from 
their  opinions. 

The  First  Argument. 

Some  of  the  Mutakallemim  thought  that  by  proving  the  creation  of  one 
thing,  they  demonstrated  the  creatio  ex  nihilo  in  reference  to  the  entire 
universe.     E.g.,  Zaid,  who  from  a  small  molecule  had  gradually  been  brought 


134  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

to  a  state  of  perfection,  has  undoubtedly  not  effected  this  change  and  de- 
velopment by  his  own  efforts,  but  owes  it  to  an  external  agency.  It  is  there- 
fore clear  that  an  agent  is  required  for  such  organization  and  successive 
transmutation.  A  palm-tree  or  any  other  object  might  equally  be  selected 
to  illustrate  this  idea.  The  whole  universe,  they  argue,  is  analogous  to  these 
instances.  Thus  you  see  how  they  believe  that  a  law  discovered  in  one  thing 
may  equally  be  applied  to  everything. 

The  Second  Argument. 

This  argument  is  likewise  based  on  the  belief  that  the  proof  by  which  the 
creation  of  one  thing  is  demonstrated,  holds  good  for  the  creatio  ex  nihilo 
in  reference  to  the  whole  universe.  E.g.,  a  certain  individual,  called  Zaid, 
who  one  time  was  not  yet  in  existence,  subsequently  came  into  existence ; 
and  if  it  be  assumed  that  Amr,  his  father,  was  the  cause  of  his  existence,  Amr 
himself  must  likewise  have  passed  from  non-existence  into  existence  ;  sup- 
pose then  that  Zaid's  father  unquestionably  owed  his  origin  to  Khaled,  Zaid's 
grandfather,  it  would  be  found  that  Khaled  himself  did  not  exist  from 
eternity,  and  the  series  of  causes  could  thus  be  carried  back  to  infinity.  But 
such  an  infinite  series  of  beings  is  inadmissible  according  to  the  theory  of  the 
Mutakallemim,  as  we  have  shown  in  our  discussion  of  the  eleventh  proposi- 
tion. In  continuing  this  species  of  reasoning,  you  come  to  a  first  man,  who 
had  no  parent,  viz.  Adam.  Then  you  will  of  course  ask,  whence  came  this 
first  man  ?  If,  e.g.,  the  reply  be  given  that  he  was  made  out  of  earth,  you 
will  again  inquire,  "  Whence  came  that  earth  ?  "  "  Out  of  water."  "  Whence 
came  the  water  ?  "  The  inquiry  would  be  carried  on,  either  ad  infinitum, 
which  is  absurd,  or  until  you  meet  with  a  something  that  came  into  existence 
from  absolute  non-existence  ;  in  this  latter  case  you  would  arrive  at  the  real 
truth  ;  here  the  series  of  inquiries  ends.  This  result  of  the  question  proves, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Mutakallemim,  that  the  whole  universe  came 
into  existence  from  absolute  non-existence. 

The  Third  Argument. 

The  atoms  of  things  are  necessarily  either  joined  together  or  separate,  and 
even  the  same  atoms  may  at  one  time  be  united  at  another  disunited.  It  is 
therefore  evident  that  the  nature  of  the  atoms  does  not  necessitate  either 
their  combination  or  their  separation  ;  for  if  they  were  separate  by  virtue  of 
their  nature  they  would  never  join,  and  if  they  were  joined  by  virtue  of  their 
nature,  they  could  never  again  be  separated.  Thus  there  is  no  reason 
why  atoms  should  rather  be  combined  than  separate,  or  vice  versa,  why 
rather  in  a  state  of  separation  than  of  combination.  Seeing  that  some  atoms 
are  joined,  others  separate,  and  again  others  subject  to  change,  they  being 
combined  at  one  time  and  separated  at  another,  the  fact  may  therefore  be 
taken  as  a  proof  that  the  atoms  cannot  combine  or  separate  without  an  agent. 
This  argument,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Mutakallemim,  establishes 
the  theory  that  the  universe  has  been  created  from  nothing.  You  have 
already  been  told,  that  those  who  employ  this  argument  rely  on  the  first 
proposition  of  the  Mutakallemim  with  its  corollaries. 


THE    KALAM  135 

The  Fourth  Argument. 

The  whole  Universe  is  composed  of  substance  and  accidents ;   every  sub- 
stance must  possess  one  accident  or  more,  and  since  the  accidents  are  not 
eternal,  the  substance,  the  substratum  of  the  accidents,  cannot  be  eternal  ; 
for  that  which  is  joined  to  transient  things  and  cannot  exist  without  them 
is  itself  transient.     Therefore  the  whole  Universe  has  had  a  beginning.     To 
the  objection,  that  the  substance  may  possibly  be  eternal  while  the  accidents, 
though  in  themselves  transient,  succeed  each  other  in  an  infinite  series,  they 
reply  that,  in  this  case,  an  infinite  number  of  transient  things  would  be  in 
existence,  an  eventuality  which,  according  to  their  theory,  is  impossible. 
This  argument  is  considered  by  them  the  best  and  safest,  and  has  been 
accepted  by  many  of  them  as  a  strict  proof.     Its  acceptance  implies  the 
admission  of  the  following  three  propositions,  the  object  of  which  is  well 
understood  by  philosophers.     (l)  An  infinite  series  of  things,  of  which  the 
one  succeeds  when  the  other  has  ceased  to  exist,  is  impossible.     (2)  All  acci- 
dents have  a  beginning. — Our  opponent,  who  defends  the  theory  of  the 
eternity  of  the  universe,  can  refute  this  proposition  by  pointing  to  one  par- 
ticular accident,  namely  to  the  circular  motion  of  the  sphere  ;  for  it  is  held 
by  Aristotle  that  this  circular  motion  is  eternal,  and,  therefore,  the  spheres 
which  perform  this  motion  are,  according  to  his  opinion,  likewise  eternal. 
It  is  of  no  use  to  prove  that  all  other  accidents  have  a  beginning ;   for  our 
opponent  does  not  deny  this ;  he  says  that  accidents  may  supervene  an  object 
which  has  existed  from  eternity,  and  may  follow  each  other  in  rotation. 
He  contents  himself  with  maintaining  that  this  particular  accident,  viz., 
circular  motion,  the  motion  of  the  heavenly  sphere,  is  eternal,  and  does  not 
belong  to  the  class  of  transient  accidents.     It  is  therefore  necessary  to  ex- 
amine this  accident  by  itself,  and  to  prove  that  it  is  not  eternal.     (3)  The 
next  proposition  which  the  author  of  this  argument  accepts  is  as  follows : 
Every  material  object  consists  of  substance  and  accidents,  that  is  to  say,  of 
atoms  and  accidents  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Mutakallemim  use  the  term. 
But  if  a  material  object  were  held  to  be  a  combination  of  matter  and  form, 
as  has  been  proved  by  our  opponent,  it  would  be  necessary  to  demonstrate 
that  the  primal  matter  and  the  primal  form  are  transient,  and  only  then  the 
proof  of  the  creatio  ex  nihilo  would  be  complete. 

The  Fifth  Argument. 

This  argument  is  based  on  the  theory  of  Determination,  and  is  made  much 
of  by  the  Mutakallemim.  It  is  the  same  as  the  theory  which  I  explained  in 
discussing  the  tenth  proposition.  Namely,  when  they  treat  either  of  the 
Universe  in  general,  or  of  any  of  its  parts,  they  assume  that  it  can  have  such 
properties  and  such  dimensions  as  it  actually  has ;  that  it  may  receive  such 
accidents  as  in  reality  are  noticed  in  it,  and  that  it  may  exist  in  such  a  place 
and  at  such  a  time  as  in  fa^  is  the  case  ;  but  it  may  be  larger  or  smaller,  may 
receive  other  properties  and  accidents,  and  come  to  existence  at  an  earlier 
or  a  later  period,  or  in  a  different  place.  Consequently,  the  fact  that  a  thing 
has  been  determined  in  its  composition,  size,  place,  accident  and  time— a 
variation  in  all  these  points  being  possible— is  a  proof  that  a  being  exists 
which  freely  chooses  and  determines  these  divers  relations  ;  and  the  circum- 


136  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

stance  that  the  Universe  or  a  part  of  it  requires  a  being  able  to  make  this 
selection,  proves  that  the  Universe  has  been  created  ex  nihilo.  For  there  is 
no  difference  which  of  the  following  expressions  is  used  :  to  determine,  to 
make,  to  create,  to  produce,  to  originate,  or  to  intend  ;  these  verbs  have  all 
one  and  the  same  meaning.  The  Mutakallemim  give  a  great  many  ex- 
amples, both  of  a  general  and  a  special  character.  They  say  it  is  not  more 
natural  for  earth  to  be  under  water  than  to  be  above  water ;  who  then 
determined  its  actual  position  ?  Or,  is  it  more  natural  that  the  sun  is 
round  than  that  it  should  be  square  or  triangular  ;  for  all  qualities  have  the 
same  relation  to  a  body  capable  of  possessing  them.  Who  then  determined 
one  particular  quality  ?  In  a  similar  way  they  treat  of  every  individual 
being ;  when,  e.g.,  they  notice  flowers  of  different  colours,  they  are  unable 
to  explain  the  phenomenon,  and  they  take  it  as  a  strong  proof  in  favour  of 
their  theory  ;  they  say,  "  Behold,  the  earth  is  everywhere  alike,  the  water  is 
alike  ;  why  then  is  this  flower  red  and  that  one  yellow  ?  Some  being  must 
have  determined  the  colour  of  each,  and  that  being  is  God.  A  being  must 
therefore  exist  which  determines  everything,  both  as  regards  the  Universe 
generally,  and  each  of  its  parts  individually.  All  this  is  the  logical  con- 
sequence of  the  tenth  proposition.  The  theory  of  determination  is  more- 
over adopted  by  some  of  those  who  assume  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  as 
will  be  explained  below.  In  conclusion,  I  consider  this  to  be  the  best  argu- 
ment ;  and  in  another  part  I  shall  more  fully  acquaint  you  with  the  opinion 
I  have  formed  concerning  the  theory  of  Determination. 

The  Sixth  Argument. 

One  of  the  modern  Mutakallemim  thought  that  he  had  found  a  very  good 
argument,  much  better  than  any  advanced  hitherto,  namely,  the  argument 
based  on  the  triumph  of  existence  over  non-existence.  He  says  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  belief,  the  existence  of  the  Universe  is  merely  possible ; 
for  if  it  were  necessary,  the  Universe  would  be  God — but  he  seems  to  forget 
that  we  are  at  issue  with  those  who,  whilst  they  believe  in  the  existence  of 
God,  admit  at  the  same  time  the  eternity  of  the  Universe. — The  expression 
"  A  thing  is  possible  "  denotes  that  the  thing  may  either  be  in  existence  or 
not  in  existence,  and  that  there  is  not  more  reason  why  it  should  exist  than 
why  it  should  not  exist.  The  fact  that  a  thing,  the  existence  of  which  is 
possible,  actually  does  exist — although  it  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  state 
of  existence  as  to  that  of  non-existence — proves  that  there  is  a  Being  which 
gave  the  preference  to  existence  over  non-existence.  This  argument  is  very 
forcible  ;  it  is  a  modified  form  of  the  foregoing  argument  which  is  based  on 
the  theory  of  determination.  He  only  chose  the  term  "  preference  "  instead 
of  "  determination,"  and  instead  of  applying  it  to  the  properties  of  the 
existing  being  he  applies  it  to  "  the  existence  of  the  being  itself."  He  either 
had  the  intention  to  mislead,  or  he  misunderstood  the  proposition,  that  the 
existence  of  the  Universe  is  possible.  Our  opponent  who  assumes  the  eternity 
of  the  Universe,  employs  the  term  "  possible,"  and  says,  "  the  existence  of 
the  Universe  is  possible  "  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  the  Muta- 
kallem  applies  it,  as  will  be  explained  below.  Moreover  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  conclusion,  that  the  Universe  owes  its  origin  to  a  being  which 
is  able  to  give  preference  to  existence  over  non-existence,  is  correct.     For 


THE    KALAM  137 

we  may  apply  the  terms  "  preference  "  and  "  determination  "  to  anything 
capable  of  receiving  either  of  two  properties  which  are  contrary  or  opposed 
to  each  other ;  and  when  we  find  that  the  thing  actually  possesses  one  pro- 
perty and  not  the  other,  we  are  convinced  that  there  exists  a  determining 
agent.  E.g.,  you  say  that  a  piece  of  copper  could  just  as  well  be  formed  into 
a  kettle  as  into  a  lamp  ;  when  we  find  that  it  is  a  lamp  or  a  kettle,  we  have  no 
doubt  that  a  deciding  and  determining  agent  had  advisedly  chosen  one  of  the 
two  possible  forms  ;  for  it  is  clear  that  the  substance  of  copper  existed,  and 
that  before  the  determination  took  place  it  had  neither  of  the  two  possible 
forms  which  have  just  been  mentioned.  When,  however,  it  is  the  question 
whether  a  certain  existing  object  is  eternal,  or  whether  it  has  passed  from 
non-existence  into  existence,  this  argument  is  inadmissible  ;  for  it  cannot  be 
asked  who  decided  in  favour  of  the  existence  of  a  thing,  and  rejected  its  non- 
existence, except  when  it  has  been  admitted  that  it  has  passed  from  non- 
existence into  existence ;  in  the  present  case  this  is  just  the  point  under 
discussion.  If  we  were  to  take  the  existence  and  the  non-existence  of  a  thing 
as  mere  objects  of  imagination,  we  should  have  to  apply  the  tenth  propo- 
sition which  gives  prominence  to  imagination  and  fiction,  and  ignores  the 
things  which  exist  in  reality,  or  are  conceived  by  the  intellect.  Our  oppo- 
nent, however,  who  believes  in  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  will  show  that 
we  can  imagine  the  non-existence  of  the  universe  as  well  as  we  can 
imagine  any  other  impossibility.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  refute 
their  doctrine  of  the  creatio  ex  nihilo  :  I  only  wish  to  show  the  incorrectness 
of  their  belief  that  this  argument  differs  from  the  one  which  precedes ;  since 
in  fact  the  two  arguments  are  identical,  and  are  founded  on  the  well-known 
principle  of  determination. 

The  Seventh  Argument. 

One  of  the  modern  MutakaLlemim  says  that  he  is  able  to  prove  the  creation 
of  the  Universe  from  tlie  theory  put  forth  by  the  philosophers  concerning 
the  immortality  of  the  soul.  He  argues  thus  :  If  the  world  were  eternal  the 
number  of  the  dead  would  necessarily  be  infinite,  and  consequently  an 
Infinite  number  of  souls  would  coexist,  but  it  has  long  since  been  shown  that 
the  coexistence  of  an  infinite  number  of  things  is  positively  impossible.  This 
is  indeed  a  strange  argument !  One  difficulty  is  explained  by  another  which 
is  still  greater  !  Here  the  saying,  well  known  among  the  Arameans,  may  be 
applied  :  "  Your  guarantee  wants  himself  a  guarantee."  He  rests  his  argu- 
ment on  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  as  though  he  understood  this  immor- 
tality, in  what  respect  the  soul  is  immortal,  or  what  the  thing  is  which  is 
immortal !  If,  however,  he  only  meant  to  controvert  the  opinion  of  his 
opponent,  who  believed  in  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  and  also  in  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  he  accomplished  his  task,  provided  the  opponent 
admitted  the  correctness  of  the  idea  which  that  Mutakallem  formed  of  the 
philosopher's  view  on  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Some  of  the  later  philo- 
sophers explained  this  difficulty  as  follows  :  the  immortal  souls  are  not  sub- 
stances which  occupy  a  locality  or  a  space,  and  their  existence  in  an  infinite 
number  is  therefore  not  impossible.  You  must  bear  in  mind  that  those 
abstract  beings  which  are  neither  bodies  nor  forces  dwelling  in  bodies,  and 
which  in  fact  are  ideals — are  altogether  incapable  of  being  represented  as  a 


138  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

plurality  unless  some  ideals  be  the  cause  of  the  existence  of  others,  and  can 
be  distinguished  from  each  other  by  the  specific  difference  that  some  are  the 
efficient  cause  and  others  the  effect ;  but  that  which  remains  of  Zaid  [after 
his  death]  is  neither  the  cause  nor  the  effect  of  that  which  is  left  of  Amr,  and 
therefore  the  souls  of  all  the  departed  form  only  one  being  as  has  been  ex- 
plained by  Ibn  Bekr  Ibn  Al-zaig,  and  others  who  ventured  to  speak  on  these 
profound  subjects.  In  short,  such  intricate  disciplines,  which  our  mind  can 
scarcely  comprehend,  cannot  furnish  any  principles  for  the  explanation  of 
other  subjects. — It  should  be  noted  that  whoever  endeavours  to  prove  or  to 
disprove  the  eternity  of  the  Universe  by  these  arguments  of  the  Mutakalle- 
mim,  must  necessarily  rely  on  one  of  the  two  following  propositions,  or  on 
both  of  them  ;  namely  on  the  tenth  proposition,  according  to  which  the 
actual  form  of  a  thing  is  merely  one  of  many  equally  possible  forms,  and  which 
implies  that  there  must  be  a  being  capable  of  making  the  special  selection  ; 
or  on  the  eleventh  proposition  which  rejects  the  existence  of  an  infinite 
series  of  things  coming  successively  into  existence.  The  last-named  pro- 
position is  demonstrated  in  various  ways,  e.g.,  they  advert  to  a  class  of 
transient  individuals,  and  to  a  certain  particular  date.  From  the  theory 
which  asserts  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  it  would  follow  that  the  indivi- 
duals of  that  class  up  to  that  particular  date  are  infinite  in  number ;  a 
thousand  years  later  the  individuals  of  that  class  are  likewdse  infinite  in 
number  ;  the  last  number  must  exceed  the  previous  one  by  the  number  of 
the  individuals  born  in  those  thousand  years,  and  consequently  one  infinite 
number  would  be  larger  than  another.  The  same  argument  is  applied  to 
the  revolutions  of  the  heavenly  sphere,  and  in  like  manner  it  is  shown  that 
one  infinite  number  of  revolutions  would  be  larger  than  another  ;  the  same 
result  is  obtained  when  revolutions  of  one  sphere  are  compared  with  those 
of  another  moving  more  slowly ;  the  revolutions  of  both  spheres  [though 
unequal]  would  be  infinite  in  number.  Similarly  they  proceed  with  all 
those  accidents  which  are  subject  to  destruction  and  production  ;  the  indi- 
vidual accidents  that  have  passed  into  non-existence  are  counted  and  repre- 
sented as  though  they  were  still  in  existence,  and  as  though  they  were  things 
with  a  definite  beginning  ;  this  imaginary  number  is  then  either  increased 
or  reduced.  Yet  all  these  things  have  no  reality  and  are  mere  fictions. 
Abunazar  Alfarabi  in  criticizing  this  proposition,  has  exposed  all  its  weak 
points,  as  you  will  clearly  perceive,  when  you  study  his  book  on  the  change- 
able beings  earnestly  and  dispassionately.  These  are  the  principal  arguments 
of  the  Mutakallcmim  in  seeking  to  establish  the  creatio  ex  nihilo.  Having 
thus  proved  that  the  Universe  is  not  eternal,  they  necessarily  infer  that  there 
is  an  A  gens  who  created  it  in  accordance  with  His  intention,  desire  and  will. 
They  then  proceed  to  prove  the  unitv  of  that  Agens  as  I  am  going  to  point 
out  in  the  next  chapter. 

CHAPTER  LXXV 

In  this  chapter  I  shall  explain  to  you  how  the  Mutakallcmim  prove  the  Unity 
of  God.  They  contend  that  the  Maker  and  Creator  of  the  Universe,  the 
existence  of  whom  is  testified  by  all  nature,  is  One.  Two  propositions  are 
employed  by  them  in  demonstrating  the  Unity  of  God,  viz.,  two  deities  or 


THE    KALAM  139 

more  would  neutralize  each  other,  and  if  several  deities  existed  they  would 
be  distinguished  from  each  other  by  a  specific  difference. 

First  Argument. 

The  first  argument  is  that  of  mutual  neutralization,  and  is  employed  by 
the  majority  of  the  Mutakallemim.  It  is  to  the  following  effect  : — If  the 
Universe  had  two  Gods,  it  would  necessarily  occur  that  the  atom — subject 
to  a  combination  with  one  or  two  opposite  qualities — either  remained  with- 
out either  of  them,  and  that  is  impossible,  or,  though  being  only  one  atom, 
included  both  qualities  at  the  same  time,  and  that  is  likewise  impossible. 
E.g.,  whilst  one  of  the  two  deities  determined  that  one  atom  or  more  should 
be  warm,  the  other  deity  might  determine  that  the  same  should  be  cold  ; 
the  consequence  of  the  mutual  neutralization  of  the  two  divine  beings  would 
thus  be  that  the  atoms  would  be  neither  warm  nor  cold — a  contingency 
which  is  impossible,  because  all  bodies  must  combine  with  one  of  two  oppo- 
sites  ;  or  they  would  be  at  the  same  time  both  warm  and  cold.  Similarly, 
it  might  occur  that  whilst  one  of  the  deities  desired  that  a  body  be  in  motion, 
the  other  might  desire  that  it  be  at  rest ;  the  body  would  then  be  either 
without  motion  and  rest,  or  would  both  move  and  rest  at  the  same  time. 
Proofs  of  this  kind  are  founded  on  the  atomic  theory  contained  in  the  first 
proposition  of  the  Mutakallemim,  on  the  proposition  which  refers  to  the 
creation  of  the  accidents,  and  on  the  proposition  that  negatives  are  properties 
of  actual  existence  and  require  for  their  production  an  agens.  For  if  it  were 
assumed  that  the  substance  of  this  world  which,  according  to  the  philosophers 
is  subject  to  successive  production  and  destruction,  is  different  from  the  sub- 
stance of  the  world  above,  viz.,  from  the  substance  of  the  spheres — a  fact 
established  by  proof— and  that  as  the  Dualists  assert,  there  are  two  divine 
beings,  one  of  whom  rules  this  world  without  influencing  the  spheres,  whilst 
the  other  governs  the  world  above  without  interfering  with  this  world— such 
theory  would  not  involve  the  mutual  neutralization  of  the  two  deities.  If 
it  were  then  objected,  that  the  existence  of  two  deities  would  necessitate  an 
imperfection  in  both  of  them,  in  so  far  as  one  deity  would  be  unable  to  m- 
fluence  the  province  of  the  other,  the  objection  would  be  met  by  the  reply 
that  this  inability  need  not  be  considered  a  defect  in  either  of  them  ;  for  that 
which  is  not  included  viathin  the  sphere  of  action  of  a  being  can  of  course  not 
be  performed  by  that  being,  and  an  agens  is  not  deficient  in  power,  if  it  is 
unable  to  perform  what  is  intrinsically  impossible.  Thus  we,  Monotheists, 
do  not  consider  it  a  defect  in  God,  that  He  does  not  combine  two  opposites 
in  one  object,  nor  do  we  test  His  omnipotence  by  the  accomplishment  of 
any  similar  impossibility.  When  the  Mutakallemim  noticed  the  weakness 
of  their  argument,  for  which  they  had  some  apparent  support,  they  had 
recourse  to  another  argument. 

Second  Argument. 
If  there  were  two  Gods,  there  would  necessarily  be  some  element  common 
to  both,  whilst  some  element  present  in  the  one  would  be  absent  in  the  other, 
and  constitute  the  specific  difference  between  them.  This  is  a  philosophic 
and  sound  argument  for  those  who  are  able  to  examine  it,  and  to  obtain  a 
clear  insight  into  its  premises,  which  will  be  further  explained,  m  our  ex- 


140  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

position  of  the  view  of  the  philosophers  on  this  point.  But  it  cannot  be 
accepted  by  those  who  admit  the  existence  of  divine  attributes.  For  accord- 
ing to  their  opinion,  the  Primal  Cause  includes  many  different  elements. 
They  represent  its  wisdom  and  its  omnipotence  as  two  different  things,  and 
again  the  omnipotence  as  different  from  the  will.  Consequently  it  would 
not  be  impossible  that  either  of  the  two  divine  beings  possessed  several 
properties,  some  of  which  would  be  common  to  both,  and  some  peculiar  to 
only  one  of  them. 

Third  Argument. 

This  argument  is  likewise  based  on  one  of  the  Propositions  of  the  Kalaiu. 
For  some  of  the  Mutakallemim  belonging  to  the  old  school  assume,  that 
when  the  Creator  wills  a  thing,  the  will  is  not  an  element  superadded  to  the 
essence  of  God  :  it  is  a  will  without  a  substratum.  In  accordance  with  the 
propositions  which  we  have  mentioned,  and  of  which,  as  you  vnll  see,  it  is 
difficult  to  form  a  true  conception,  they  say  that  one  will,  which  is  indepen- 
dent of  any  substratum,  cannot  be  ascribed  to  two  beings ;  for,  as  they  assert, 
one  cause  cannot  be  the  source  of  two  laws  for  two  essences.  This  is,  as  I  told 
you,  the  method  of  explaining  one  difficulty  by  means  of  another  and  still 
greater  difficulty.  For  as  they  define  the  Will,  it  is  inconceivable,  and  some 
have,  therefore,  considered  it  to  be  a  mere  non-entity  ;  others  who  admit  its 
existence,  meet  wdth  many  insuperable  difficulties.  The  Mutakallemim, 
nevertheless,  establish  on  its  existence  one  of  the  proofs  for  the  unity  of  God. 

Fourth  Argument. 

The  existence  of  an  action  is  necessarily  positive  evidence  of  the  existence 
of  an  agens,  but  does  not  prove  the  existence  of  more  than  one  agens.  There 
is  no  difference  whether  the  existence  of  one  God  be  assumed  or  the  existence 
of  two,  or  three,  or  twenty,  or  any  number.  This  is  plain  and  clear.  But 
the  argument  does  not  seem  to  prove  the  non-existence  of  a  multitude  of 
deities  ;  it  only  shows  that  their  number  is  unknown  ;  the  deity  may  be  one 
sole  being,  but  may  also  include  several  divine  beings.  The  following  sup- 
plemental argument  has  therefore  been  advanced  :  possibility  is  inapplicable 
to  the  existence  of  God,  which  is  absolute  ;  the  possibility  of  the  existence  of 
more  than  one  God  must  therefore  be  denied.  This  is  the  whole  essence  of 
the  proof,  and  its  fallacy  is  self-evident ;  for  although  the  notion  of  possi- 
bility cannot  be  applied  to  the  existence  of  God,  it  can  be  applied  to  our 
knowledge  of  God  :  for  an  alternative  in  our  knowledge  of  a  thing  does  not 
involve  an  alternative  in  the  actual  existence  of  the  thing,  and  perhaps  there 
is  neither  a  tripartite  deity  as  the  Christians  believe,  nor  an  undivided  Unity 
as  we  believe.  This  is  clear  to  those  who  have  been  taught  to  notice  the 
conclusions  implied  in  given  premises. 

Fifth  Argument. 

One  of  the  modern  Mutakallemim  thought  that  he  found  a  proof  of  the 
Unity  of  God  in  the  idea  of  requisiteness.  Suppose  there  were  two  divine 
beings  ;  if  one  of  them  were  able  to  create  the  universe,  the  second  God 
would  be  superfluous,  and  there  would  be  no  need  for  his  existence.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  entire  universe  could  not  be  created  or  governed  except 


THE    KALAM  141 

by  both  of  them,  each  of  them  would  be  imperfect  in  so  far  as  he  would  re- 
quire the  co-operation  of  another  being,  and  would  thus  be  limited  in  power. 
This  argument  is,  in  fact,  only  a  variation  of  "  the  mutual  neutralization  of 
two  deities."  There  is  this  difficulty  in  such  proofs,  that  a  certain  degree  of 
imperfection  is  ascribed  to  a  Being  which  does  not  accomplish  tasks  beyond 
its  sphere.  We  do  not  call  a  person  weak  because  he  cannot  move  a  thousand 
hundredweights,  and  we  do  not  say  that  God  is  imperfect  because  He  cannot 
transform  Himself  into  a  body,  or  cannot  create  another  being  like  Himself, 
or  make  a  square  whose  diagonal  should  be  equal  to  one  of  its  sides.  In  the  same 
manner  we  should  not  consider  it  an  imperfection  in  God,  if  He  were  not  the 
only  Creator,  and  if  it  were  absolutely  necessary  that  there  should  be  two 
Creators  ;  not  because  the  one  God  required  the  assistance  of  the  other,  but 
because  the  existence  of  both  of  them  was  equally  necessary,  and  because  it 
was  impossible  that  it  should  be  otherwise.  Further  we  do  not  say  that  the 
Almighty  is  imperfect,  because  He  does  not,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Mutakallemim,  produce  a  body  otherwise  than  by  the  creation  of  atoms, 
and  by  their  combination  with  accidents  created  in  them.  That  inability 
is  not  called  want  or  imperfection,  since  another  process  is  impossible.  In 
like  manner  the  Dualist  might  say,  that  it  is  impossible  for  one  Being  to  act 
alone,  and  that  this  circumstance  constitutes  no  imperfection  in  either  of 
the  Deities,  because  the  absolute  existence  of  one  Deity  necessitates  the  co- 
existence of  the  other.  Some  of  the  Mutakallemim,  weary  of  these  arguments, 
declared  that  the  Unity  of  God  is  a  doctrine  which  must  be  received  as  a 
matter  of  faith,  but  most  of  them  rejected  this  theory,  and  reviled  its  authors. 
I,  however,  hold,  that  those  who  accept  this  theory  are  right-minded,  and 
shrink  from  admitting  an  erroneous  opinion ;  when  they  do  not  perceive 
any  cogency  in  the  arguments,  and  find  that  the  proofs  advanced  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  are  inconclusive,  they  prefer  to  assume  that  it  could  only  be 
received  as  a  matter  of  faith.  For  the  Mutakallemim  do  not  hold  that  the 
Universe  has  any  defined  properties  on  which  a  true  proof  could  be  founded, 
or  that  man's  intellect  is  endowed  with  any  such  faculty  as  would  enable  him 
to  form  correct  conclusions.  It  is,  however,  not  without  a  motive  that  they 
defend  this  theory  ;  they  wish  to  assume  such  a  form  of  the  Universe,  as 
could  be  employed  to  support  a  doctrine  for  which  otherwise  no  proof  could 
be  found,  and  would  lead  us  to  neglect  the  investigation  of  that  which  in  fact 
can  be  proved.  We  can  only  appeal  to  the  Almighty  and  to  those  intelligent 
persons  who  confess  their  error  when  they  discover  it. 

CHAPTER  LXXVI 

The  reasonings  and  arguments  of  the  MutakaUemim  to  demonstrate  the 
Incorporeality  of  God  are  very  weak,  and  indeed  inferior  to  their  arguments 
for  the  Unity  of  God.  They  treat  the  doctrine  of  the  Incorporeality  of  God 
as  if  it  were  the  logical  sequence  of  the  theory  of  His  Unity,  and  they  say 
that  the  attribute  "  one  "  cannot  be  applied  to  a  corporeal  object.  Those 
who  maintain  that  God  is  incorporeal  because  a  corporeal  object  consists  of 
substance  and  form— a  combination  known  to  be  impossible  in  the  Divine 
Being,  are  not  in  my  opinion  Mutakallemim,  and  such  an  argument  is  not 
founded  on  the  propositions  of  the  Kalam  ;   on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  logical 


142  GVIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

proof  based  on  the  theory  of  substance  and  form,  and  on  a  right  conception 
of  their  properties.  It  has  the  character  of  a  philosophical  argument,  and  I 
shall  fully  explain  it  when  treating  of  the  arguments  of  the  philosophers. 
Here  we  only  propose  to  discuss  the  arguments  by  which  the  Mutakallemim 
desire  to  prove  the  Incorporeality  of  God  in  accordance  with  their  pro- 
positions and  the  method  of  their  reasoning. 

First  Argument. 
If  God  were  corporeal,  His  true  essence  would  necessarily  either  exist 
entirely  in  every  part  of  the  body,  that  is  to  say,  in  each  of  its  atoms,  or  would 
be  confined  to  one  of  the  atoms.  In  the  latter  alternative  the  other  atoms 
would  be  superfluous,  and  the  existence  of  the  corporeal  being  [with  the 
exception  of  the  one  atom]  would  be  of  no  purpose.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
each  atom  fully  represented  the  Divine  Being,  the  whole  body  would  not  be 
one  deity,  but  a  complex  of  deities,  and  this  would  be  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
adopted  by  the  kalam  that  God  is  one.  An  examination  of  this  argument 
shows  that  it  is  based  on  the  first  and  fifth  propositions.  But  there  is  room 
for  the  following  objection  :  "  God  does  not  consist  of  atoms,  that  is  to  say, 
He  is  not,  as  you  assert,  composed  of  a  number  of  elements  created  by  Him- 
self, but  is  one  continuous  body,  and  indivisible  except  in  man's  imagination, 
which  affords  no  test ;  for  in  man's  imagination  the  substance  of  the  heavens 
may  be  torn  or  rent  asunder.  The  philosopher  holds  that  such  a  possibility 
results  from  assuming  a  similarity  and  an  analogy  between  the  visible,  i.e., 
the  bodies  which  exist  among  us,  and  the  invisible." 

Second  Argument. 
This  argument,  they  believe,  is  of  great  importance.  Its  main  support  is 
the  impossibility  of  comparison,  i.e.,  the  belief  that  God  cannot  be  compared 
to  any  of  His  creatures ;  and  that  He  would  be  comparable  to  other  corporeal 
objects  if  He  were  corporeal.  They  put  great  stress  on  this  argument,  and 
say  as  follows :  "  If  it  were  asserted  that  God  is  corporeal,  but  that  His 
substance  is  not  like  that  of  other  corporeal  beings,  it  would  be  self-contra- 
dictory ;  for  all  bodies  are  alike  as  regards  their  substance,  and  are  distin- 
guished from  each  other  by  other  things,  viz.,  the  accidents."  They  also 
argue  that  if  God  were  corporeal  it  would  follow  that  He  has  created  another 
being  like  Himself.  This  argument  is  refuted  in  two  ways.  First,  the 
objector  does  not  admit  the  impossibility  of  comparison ;  he  asks  how  it 
could  be  proved  that  God  cannot  be  compared  to  any  of  His  creatures.  No 
doubt  that,  in  support  of  their  view,  that  a  comparison  between  the  Almighty 
and  any  other  being  is  inadmissible,  they  would  have  to  cite  the  words  of  the 
Prophets,  and  thus  accept  this  doctrine  by  the  authority  of  tradition,  not  by 
the  authority  of  reason.  The  argument  that  God,  if  comparable  to  any  of 
His  creatures,  would  be  found  to  have  created  beings  like  Himself,  is  refuted 
by  the  objector  in  the  following  way  :  "  The  created  things  are  not  like  Him 
in  every  respect ;  for  I  do  not  deny  that  God  has  many  properties  and  pecu- 
liarities." For  he  who  admits  the  corporeality  of  God  does  not  deny  the 
existence  of  properties  in  the  divine  Being.  Another  and  more  forcible 
argument  is  this :  All  who  have  studied  philosophy,  and  have  made  them- 
selves thoroughly  acquainted  with  philosophical  theories,  assume  as  demon- 


THE    KALAM 


143 


strated  facts,  first  that  the  term  substance,  when  applied  to  the  spheres 
above  and  to_  the  corporeal  objects  here  on  earth  is  a  perfect  homonym,  for 
the  substance  of  the  one  is  not  the  substance  of  the  other  ;  and  secondly  that 
the  forms  of  the  things  on  this  earth  are  different  from  the  forms  of  the 
spheres  ;  the  terms  substance  and  form  when  applied  both  to  things  below 
and  to  the  spheres  above  are  homonyms ;  although  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  spheres  have  [like  the  things  below,  three]  dimensions,  they  are  corporeal 
because  they  consist  of  substance  and  form,  not  because  they  have  dimen- 
sions. If  this  explanation  is  admitted  with  reference  to  the  spheres,  how 
much  more  is  he  who  believes  that  God  is  corporeal  justified  in  saying  that 
God  is  a  corporeal  being  which  has  dimensions,  but  which  in  its  substance,  its 
true  nature  and  properties  is  very  different  from  all  created  bodies,  and  that 
the  term  "  substance  "  is  applied  to  Him  and  to  His  creatures  homonymously, 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  true  believers,  who  have  a  correct  conception  of 
the  divine  idea,  apply  the  term  "  existence  "  homonymously  to  Him  and  to 
His  creatures.  The  Corporealists  do  not  admit  that  all  bodies  consist  of 
similar  atoms ;  they  believe  that  God  created  all  things,  and  that  these  differ 
from  each  other  both  in  their  substances  and  in  their  constituent  properties  ; 
and  just  as  the  substance  of  dung  differs  from  the  substance  of  the  sun,  so 
does,  according  to  this  theory,  the  substance  of  the  spheres  and  the  stars 
differ  from  the  substance  of  the  created  light,  i.e.,  the  Divine  Glory  {She- 
chinah),  and  again  the  substance  of  the  Divine  Glory,  or  the  pillar  of  cloud 
created  [for  the  purpose],  differ  from  the  substance  of  the  Most  High  ;  for 
the  substance  of  the  latter  is  sublime,  perfect,  simple,  constant  and  immu- 
table. His  absolute  existence  remains  always  the  same,  and  He  creates  all 
things  according  to  His  will  and  desire.  How  could  this  argument,  though 
it  be  weak,  be  refuted  by  these  strange  methods  of  the  Mutakallemim,  which 
I  pointed  out  to  you  ? 

'  Third  Argument. 

If  God  were  corporeal,  He  would  be  finite,  and  so  far  this  argument  is 
correct ;  if  He  were  finite,  He  would  have  certain  dimensions  and  a  certain 
form  ;  this  is  also  a  correct  conclusion.  But  they  continue  thus  :  Attribute 
to  God  any  magnitude  or  form  whatever  :  He  might  be  either  larger  or 
smaller,  and  might  also  have  a  different  form.  The  fact  that  He  has  one 
special  magnitude  and  one  special  form  presupposes  the  existence  of  a  deter- 
mining agens.  I  have  heard  that  they  attach  great  importance  to  this  argu- 
ment, but  in  truth  it  is  the  weakest  of  all  the  arguments  mentioned  above. 
It  is  founded  on  the  tenth  proposition,  the  feebleness  of  which  in  ignoring 
the  actual  properties  of  things,  we  have  clearly  shown  in  regard  to  ordinary 
beings  and  must  be  much  more  evident  in  regard  to  the  Creator.  There  is 
no  difference  between  this  argument  and  their  assertion  that  the  fact  of  the 
existence  of  the  Universe  having  been  preferred  to  its  non-existence  proves 
the  existence  of  an  agens  that  preferred  the  existence  of  the  Universe  to  its 
non-existence  at  a  time  when  both  were  equally  possible.  If  it  were  asked 
why  this  argument  should  not  be  applied  to  God — viz.,  that  His  mere  exist- 
ence proved  the  existence  of  an  agens  which  determined  His  existence  and 
rejected  His  non-existence — they  would  undoubtedly  answer  that  this 
admission  would  only  lead  to  a  repetition  of  the  same  argument  until  at 


144  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

length  a  being  be  found  whose  existence  is  not  merely  potential  but  necessary, 
and  which  does  not  require  a  causa  efficiens.  But  this  same  answer  can  also 
be  applied  to  dimensions  and  to  form.  It  can  only  be  said  in  reference  to  all 
other  forms  and  magnitudes,  the  existence  of  which  is  'possible,  that  is  to  say 
which  came  into  existence  after  a  state  of  non-existence,  that  they  might 
have  been  larger  or  smaller  than  they  actually  are,  or  that  they  might  have 
had  a  form  different  from  that  which  they  actually  possess,  and  require  for 
this  reason  some  determining  agens.  But  the  forms  and  dimensions  of  God 
(who  is  above  all  imperfection  and  similitude)  !  did  not  come  into  existence 
according  to  the  opinion  of  the  Corporealist  after  a  state  of  non-existence, 
and  therefore  no  determining  agens  was  necessary ;  His  substance  with  its 
dimensions  and  forms  has  a  necessary  existence  ;  no  agens  was  required  to 
decide  upon  His  existence,  and  to  reject  His  non-existence,  since  non- 
existence is  altogether  inadmissible  in  God.  In  like  manner  there  was  no 
force  required  to  determine  His  magnitude  and  form,  they  were  absolutely 
inseparable  from  His  existence. 

If  you  wish  to  go  in  search  of  truth,  to  cast  aside  your  passions,  your  tra- 
dition, and  your  fondness  of  things  you  have  been  accustomed  to  cherish,  if 
you  wish  to  guard  yourself  against  error :  then  consider  the  fate  of  these 
speculators  and  the  result  of  their  labours  ;  observe  how  they  rushed,  as  it 
were,  from  the  ashes  into  the  fire.  They  denied  the  nature  of  the  existing 
things,  misrepresented  the  properties  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  thought  that 
they  were  able,  by  their  propositions,  to  prove  the  creation  of  the  world,  but 
in  fact  they  were  far  from  proving  the  creatio  ex  nihilo,  and  have  weakened 
the  arguments  for  the  existence,  the^  unity,  and  the  incorporeality  of  God. 
The  proofs  of  all  these  doctrines  must  be  based  on  the  well-known  nature 
of  the  existing  things,  as  perceived  by  the  senses  and  the  intellect. 

Having  thus  discussed  the  arguments  of  the  Mutakallemim,  we  shall  now 
proceed  to  consider  the  propositions  of  the  philosophers  and  their  arguments 
for  the  existence  of  God,  His  Unity  and  His  Incorporeality,  and  we  shall  for 
the  present  assume  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  without  finally  accepting  it. 
Next  to  this  we  shall  develop  our  own  method,  which  is  the  result  of  deep 
study,  in  demonstrating  these  three  principles,  and  we  shall  then  examine 
the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  as  assumed  by  the  philosophers. 


PART  II 


PROPOSITIONS    OF    THE    PHILOSOPHERS        145 

INTRODUCTION 

Twenty-five  of  the  propositions  which  are  employed  in  the  proof  for  the 
existence  of  God,  or  in  the  arguments  demonstrating  that  God  is  neither 
corporeal  nor  a  force  connected  with  a  material  being,  or  that  He  is  One, 
have  been  fully  established,  and  their  correctness  is  beyond  doubt.  Aristotle 
and  the  Peripatetics  who  followed  him  have  proved  each  of  these  proposi- 
tions. There  is,  however,  one  proposition  which  we  do  not  accept — namely, 
the  proposition  which  affirms  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  but  we  will  admit 
it  for  the  present,  because  by  doing  so  we  shall  be  enabled  clearly  to  demon- 
strate our  own  theory. 

Proposition  I. 
The  existence  of  an  infinite  magnitude  is  impossible. 

Proposition  II. 
The  co-existence  of  an  infinite  number  of  finite  magnitudes  is  impossible 

Proposition  III. 
The  existence  of  an  infinite  number  of  causes  and  effects  is  impossible, 
even  if  these  were  not   magnitudes ;   if,  e.g.,  one  Intelligence  were  the  cause 
of  a  second,  the  second  the  cause  of  a  third,  the  third  the  cause  of  a  fourth, 
and  so  on,  the  series  could  not  be  continued  ad  infinitum. 

Proposition  IV. 

Four  categories  are  subject  to  change  : — 

{a.)  Substance.— Changes  which  affect  the  substance  of  a  thing  are  called 
genesis  and  destruction. 

{b.)  Quantity.— Changes  in  reference  to  quantity  are  increase  and  de- 
crease. 

(c.)  Quality. — Changes  in  the  qualities  of  things  are  transformations. 

(d.)  Place. — Change  of  place  is  called  motion. 

The  term  "  motion  "  is  properly  applied  to  change  of  place,  but  is  also 
used  in  a  general  sense  of  all  kinds  of  changes. 

Proposition  V. 
Motion  implies  change  and  transition  from  potentiality  to  actuality. 

Proposition  VI. 
The  motion  of  a  thing  is  either  essential  or  accidental ;  or  it  is  due  to  an 
external  force,  or  to  the  participation  of  the  thing  in  the  motion  of  another 
thing.  This  latter  kind  of  motion  is  similar  to  the  accidental  one.  An  in- 
stance of  essential  motion  may  be  found  in  the  translation  of  a  thing  from 
one  place  to  another.  The  accident  of  a  thing,  as,  e.g.,  its  black  colour,  is 
said  to  move  when  the  thing  itself  changes  its  place.  The  upward  mouon 
of  a  stone,  owing  to  a  force  applied  to  it  in  that  direction,  is  an  instance  of  a 
motion  due  to  an  external  force.  The  motion  of  a  nail  in  a  boat  may  serve 
to  illustrate  motion  due  to  the  participation  of  a  thing  in  the  motion  of 
another  thing ;  for  when  the  boat  moves,  the  nail  is  said  to  move  likewise. 
The  same  is  the  case  with  everj-thing  composed  of  several  parts  :  when  the 
thing  itself  moves,  every  part  of  it  is  likewise  said  to  move. 


146  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Proposition  VII. 
Things  which  are  changeable  are,  at  the  same  time,  divisible.     Hence 
everything  that  moves  is  divisible,  and  consequently  corporeal ;    but  that 
which  is  indivisible  cannot  move,  and  cannot  therefore  be  corporeal. 

Proposition  VIII. 
A  thing  that  moves  accidentally  must  come  to  rest,  because  it  does  not 
move  of  its  own  accord  ;  hence  accidental  motion  cannot  continue  for  ever. 

Proposition  IX. 

A  corporeal  thing  that  sets  another  corporeal  thing  in  motion  can  only 
effect  this  by  setting  itself  in  motion  at  the  time  it  causes  the  other  thing 
to  move. 

Proposition  X. 

A  thing  which  is  said  to  be  contained  in  a  corporeal  object  must  satisfy 
either  of  the  two  following  conditions :  it  either  exists  through  that  object, 
as  is  the  case  with  accidents,  or  it  is  the  cause  of  the  existence  of  that  object ; 
such  is,  e.g.,  its  essential  property.  In  both  cases  it  is  a  force  existing  in  a 
corporeal  object. 

Proposition  XI. 

Among  the  things  which  exist  through  a  material  object,  there  are  some 
which  participate  in  the  division  of  that  object,  and  are  therefore  accidentally 
divisible,  as,  e.g.,  its  colour,  and  all  other  qualities  that  spread  throughout  its 
parts.  On  the  other  hand,  among  the  things  which  form  the  essential  ele- 
ments of  an  object,  there  are  some  which  cannot  be  divided  in  any  way,  as, 
e.g.,  the  soul  and  the  intellect. 

Proposition  XII. 

A  force  which  occupies  all  parts  of  a  corporeal  object  is  finite,  that  object 
itself  being  finite. 

Proposition  XIII. 

None  of  the  several  kinds  of  change  can  be  continuous,  except  motion  from 
place  to  place,  provided  it  be  circular. 

Proposition  XIV. 
Locomotion  is  in  the  natural  order  of  the  several  kinds  of  motion  the  first 
and  foremost.  For  genesis  and  corruption  are  preceded  by  transformation, 
which,  in  its  turn,  is  preceded  by  the  approach  of  the  transforming  agent  to 
the  object  which  is  to  be  transformed.  Also,  increase  and  decrease  are  im- 
possible without  previous  genesis  and  corruption. 

Proposition  XV. 
Time  is  an  accident  that  is  related  and  joined  to  motion  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  one  is  never  found  without  the  other.     Motion  is  only  possible  in 
time,  and  the  idea  of  time  cannot  be  conceived  otherwise  than  in  connexion 
with  motion  ;   things  which  do  not  move  have  no  relation  to  time. 

Proposition  XVI. 
Incorporeal  bodies  can  only  be  numbered  when  they  are  forces  situated 
in  a  body  ;  the  several  forces  must  then  be  counted  together  with  substances 


PROPOSITIONS    OF    THE    PHILOSOPHERS         147 

or  objects  in  which  they  exist.  Hence  purely  spiritual  beings,  which  arc 
neither  corporeal  nor  forces  situated  in  corporeal  objects,  cannot  be  counted, 
except  when  considered  as  causes  and  effects. 

Proposition  XVII. 

When  an  object  moves,  there  must  be  some  agent  that  moves  it, 
from  without,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  case  of  a  stone  set  in  motion  by  the  hand  ;  or 
from  within,  e.g.,  when  the  body  of  a  living  being  moves.  Living  beings  in- 
clude in  themselves,  at  the  same  time,  the  moving  agent  and  the  thing  moved  ; 
when,  therefore,  a  living  being  dies,  and  the  moving  agent,  the  soul,  has  left 
the  body,  i.e.,  the  thing  moved,  the  body  remains  for  some  time  in  the  same 
condition  as  before,  and  yet  cannot  move  in  the  manner  it  has  moved  pre- 
viously. The  moving  agent,  when  included  in  the  thing  moved,  is  hidden 
from,  and  imperceptible  to,  the  senses.  This  circumstance  gave  rise  to  the 
belief  that  the  body  of  an  animal  moves  without  the  aid  of  a  moving  agent. 
When  we  therefore  affirm,  concerning  a  thing  in  motion,  that  it  is  its  own 
moving  agent,  or,  as  is  generally  said,  that  it  moves  of  its  own  accord,  we 
mean  to  say  that  the  force  which  really  sets  the  body  in  motion  exists  in  that 
body  itself. 

Proposition  XVIII. 

Everything  that  passes  over  from  a  state  of  potentiality  to  that  of  actuality, 
is  caused  to  do  so  hy  some  external  agent ;  because  if  that  agent  existed  in 
the  thing  itself,  and  no  obstacle  prevented  the  transition,  the  thing  would 
never  be  in  a  state  of  potentiality,  but  always  in  that  of  actuality.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  while  the  thing  itself  contained  that  agent,  some  obstacle  ex- 
isted, and  at  a  certain  time  that  obstacle  was  removed,  the  same  cause  which 
removed  the  obstacle  would  undoubtedly  be  described  as  the  cause  of  the 
transition  from  potentiality  to  actuality,  [and  not  the  force  situated  within 
the  body].     Note  this. 

Proposition  XIX. 

A  thing  which  owes  its  existence  to  certain  causes  has  in  itself  merely  the 
possibility  of  existence  ;  for  only  if  these  causes  exist,  the  thing  likewise 
exists.  It  does  not  exist  if  the  causes  do  not  exist  at  all,  or  if  they  have 
ceased  to  exist,  or  if  there  has  been  a  change  in  the  relation  which  implies 
the  existence  of  that  thing  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  those  causes. 

Proposition  XX. 
A  thing  which  has  in  itself  the  necessity  of  existence  cannot  have  for  its 
existence  any  cause  whatever. 

Proposition  XXI. 
A  thing  composed  of  two  elements  has  necessarily  their  composition  as 
the  cause  of  its  present  existence.     Its  existence  is  therefore  not  necessitated 
by  its  own  essence  ;  it  depends  on  the  existence  of  its  two  component  parts 
and  their  combination. 

Proposition  XXII. 
Material  objects  are  always  composed  of  two  elements  [at  least],  and  are 
without  exception  subject  to  accidents.     The  two  component  elements  of 
all  bodies  are  substance  and   form.     The   accidents  attributed  to  material 
objects  are  quantity,  geometrical  form,  and  position. 


148  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Proposition  XXIII. 

Everything  that  exists  potentially,  and  whose  essence  includes  a  certain 
state  of  possibility,  may  at  some  time  be  without  actual  existence. 

Proposition  XXIV. 

That  which  is  potentially  a  certain  thing  is  necessarily  material,  for  the 
state  of  possibility  is  always  connected  with  matter. 

Proposition  XXV. 

Each  compound  substance  consists  of  matter  and  form,  and  requires  an 
agent  for  its  existence,  viz.,  a  force  which  sets  the  substance  in  motion,  and 
thereby  enables  it  to  receive  a  certain  form.  The  force  which  thus  prepares 
the  substance  of  a  certain  individual  being,  is  called  the  immediate  motor. 

Here  the  necessity  arises  of  investigating  into  the  properties  of  motion, 
the  moving  agent  and  the  thing  moved.  But  this  has  already  been  explained 
sufficiently  ;  and  the  opinion  of  Aristotle  may  be  expressed  in  the  following 
proposition  :  Matter  does  not  move  of  its  own  accord — an  important  pro- 
position that  led  to  the  investigation  of  the  Prime  Motor  (the  first  moving 
agent). 

Of  these  foregoing  twenty-five  propositions  some  may  be  verified  by  means 
of  a  little  reflection  and  the  application  of  a  few  propositions  capable  of  proof, 
or  of  axioms  or  theorems  of  almost  the  same  force,  such  as  have  been  ex- 
plained by  me.  Others  require  many  arguments  and  propositions,  all  of 
which,  however,  have  been  established  by  conclusive  proofs  partly  in  the 
Physics  and  its  commentaries,  and  partly  in  the  Metaphysics  and  its  com- 
mentary. I  have  already  stated  that  in  this  work  it  is  not  my  intention  to 
copy  the  books  of  the  philosophers  or  to  explain  difficult  problems,  but 
simply  to  mention  those  propositions  which  are  closely  connected  with  our 
subject,  and  which  we  want  for  our  purpose. 

To  the  above  propositions  one  must  be  added  which  enunciates  that  the 
universe  is  eternal,  and  which  is  held  by  Aristotle  to  be  true,  and  even  more 
acceptable  than  any  other  theory.  For  the  present  we  admit  it,  as  a  hypo- 
thesis, only  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating  our  theory.  It  is  the  following 
proposition  : — 

Proposition  XXVI 
Time  and  motion  are  eternal,  constant,  and  in  actual  existence. 
In  accordance  with  this  proposition,  Aristotle  is  compelled  to  assume  that 
there  exists  actually  a  body  with  constant  motion,  viz.,  the  fifth  element. 
He  therefore  says  that  the  heavens  are  not  subject  to  genesis  or  destruction, 
because  niotion  cannot  be  generated  nor  destroyed.  He  also  holds  that 
every  motion  must  necessarily  be  preceded  by  another  motion,  either  of  the 
same  or  of  a  different  kind.  The  belief  that  the  locomotion  of  an  animal  is 
not  preceded  by  another  motion,  is  not  true  ;  for  the  animal  is  caused  to 
move,  after  it  had  been  in  rest,  by  the  intention  to  obtain  those  very  things 
which  bring  about  that  locomotion.  A  change  in  its  state  of  health,  or  some 
image,  or  some  new  idea  can  produce  a  desire  to  seek  that  which  is  conducive 
to  its  welfare  and  to  avoid  that  which  is  contrary.     Each  of  these  three  causes 


THEORY    OF   THE    PHILOSOPHERS  149 

sets  the  living  being  in  motion,  and  each  of  them  is  produced  by  various 
kinds  of  motion.  Aristotle  likewise  asserts  that  everything  which  is  created 
must,  before  its  actual  creation,  have  existed  in  potentith  By  inferences 
drawn  from  this  assertion  he  seeks  to  establish  his  proposition,  viz.,  The 
thing  that  moves  is  finite,  and  its  path  finite  ;  but  it  repeats  the  motion  in 
its  path  an  infinite  number  of  times.  This  can  only  take  place  when  the 
motion  is  circular,  as  has  been  stated  in  Proposition  XIII.  Hence  follows 
also  the  existence  of  an  infinite  number  of  things  which  do  not  co-exist  but 
follow  one  after  the  other. 

Aristotle  frequently  attempts  to  establish  this  proposition ;  but  I  believe 
that  he  did  not  consider  his  proofs  to  be  conclusive.  It  appeared  to  him  to 
be  the  most  probable  and  acceptable  proposition.  His  followers,  however, 
and  the  commentators  of  his  books,  contend  that  it  contains  not  only  a  prob- 
able but  a  demonstrative  proof,  and  that  it  has,  in  fact,  been  fully  estab- 
lished. On  the  other  hand,  the  Mutakallemim  try  to  prove  that  the  pro- 
position cannot  be  true,  as,  according  to  their  opinion,  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive  how  an  infinite  number  of  things  could  even  come  into  existence 
successively.  They  assume  this  impossibility  as  an  axiom.  I,  however, 
think  that  this  proposition  is  admissible,  but  neither  demonstrative,  as  the 
commentators  of  Aristotle  assert,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  impossible,  as  the 
Mutakallemim  say.  We  have  no  intention  to  explain  here  the  proofs  given 
by  Aristotle,  or  to  show  our  doubts  concerning  them,  or  to  set  forth  our 
opinions  on  the  creation  of  the  universe.  I  here  simply  desire  to  mention 
those  propositions  which  we  shall  require  for  the  proof  of  the  three  prin- 
ciples stated  above.  Having  thus  quoted  and  admitted  these  propositions, 
I  will  now  proceed  to  explain  what  may  be  inferred  from  them. 

CHAPTER  I 

According  to  Proposition  XXV.,  a  moving  agent  must  exist  which  has 
moved  the  substance  of  all  existing  transient  things  and  enabled  it  to  receive 
Form.  The  cause  of  the  motion  of  that  agent  is  found  in  the  existence  of 
another  motor  of  the  same  or  of  a  different  class,  the  term  "  motion,''  in  a 
general  sense,  being  common  to  four  categories  (Prop.  IV.).  This  series  of 
motions  is  not  infinite  (Prop.  III.) ;  we  find  that  it  can  only  be  continued 
till  the  motion  of  the  fifth  element  is  arrived  at,  and  then  it  ends.  The 
motion  of  the  fifth  element  is  the  source  of  every  force  that  moves  and  pre- 
pares any  substance  on  earth  for  its  combination  with  a  certain  form,  and  is 
connected  with  that  force  by  a  chain  of  intermediate  motions.  The  celestial 
sphere  [or  the  fifth  element]  performs  the  act  of  locomotion  which  is  the 
first  of  the  several  kinds  of  motion  (Prop.  XIV.),  and  all  locomotion  is  found 
to  be  the  indirect  effect  of  the  motion  of  this  sphere  ;  e.g.,  a  stone  is  set  in 
motion  by  a  stick,  the  stick  by  a  man's  hand,  the  hand  by  the  sinews,  the 
sinews  by  the  muscles,  the  muscles  by  the  nerves,  the  nerves  by  the  natural 
heat  of  the  body,  and  the  heat  of  the  body  by  its  form.  This  is  undoubtedly 
the  immediate  motive  cause,  but  the  action  of  this  immediate  cause  is  due 
to  a  certain  design,  e.g.,  to  bring  a  stone  into  a  hole  by  striking  against  it  with 
a  stick  in  order  to  prevent  the  draught  from  coming  through  the  crevice. 
The  motion  of  the  air  that  causes  the  draught  is  the  effect  of  the  motion  of 


150  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  celestial  sphere.  Similarly  it  may  be  shown  that  the  ultimate  cause  of 
all  genesis  and  destruction  can  be  traced  to  the  motion  of  the  sphere.  But 
the  motion  of  the  sphere  must  likewise  have  been  effected  by  an  agent  (Prop. 
XVII.)  residing  either  without  the  sphere  or  within  it ;  a  third  case  being 
impossible.  In  the  first  case,  if  the  motor  is  without  the  sphere,  it  must 
either  be  corporeal  or  incorporeal ;  if  incorporeal,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the 
agent  is  without  the  sphere  ;  it  can  only  be  described  as  separate  from  it  ; 
because  an  incorporeal  object  can  only  be  said  metaphorically  to  reside 
without  a  certain  corporeal  object.  In  the  second  case,  if  the  agent  resides 
within  the  sphere,  it  must  be  either  a  force  distributed  throughout  the  whole 
sphere  so  that  each  part  of  the  sphere  includes  a  part  of  the  force,  as  is  the 
case  with  the  heat  of  fire  ;  or  it  is  an  indivisible  force,  e.g.,  the  soul  and  the 
intellect  (Props.  X.  and  XL),  The  agent  which  sets  the  sphere  in  motion 
must  consequently  be  one  of  the  following  four  things :  a  corporeal  object 
viathout  the  sphere  ;  an  incorporeal  object  separate  from  it ;  a  force  spread 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  sphere ;  or  an  indivisible  force  [within  the 
sphere]. 

The  first  case,  viz,,  that  the  moving  agent  of  the  sphere  is  a  corporeal 
object  without  the  sphere,  is  impossible,  as  will  be  explained.  Since  the 
moving  agent  is  corporeal,  it  must  itself  move  while  setting  another  object 
in  motion  (Prop,  IX.),  and  as  the  sixth  element  would  likewise  move  when 
imparting  motion  to  another  body,  it  would  be  set  in  motion  by  a  seventh 
element,  which  must  also  move.  An  infinite  number  of  bodies  would  thus 
be  required  before  the  sphere  could  be  set  in  motion.  This  is  contrary  to 
Proposition  II, 

The  third  case,  viz,,  that  the  moving  object  be  a  force  distributed  through- 
out the  whole  body,  is  likewise  impossible.  For  the  sphere  is  corporeal,  and 
must  therefore  be  finite  (Prop.  I.)  ;  also  the  force  it  contains  must  be  finite 
(Prop.  XII.),  since  each  part  of  the  sphere  contains  part  of  the  force  (Prop. 
XI.)  :  the  latter  can  consequently  not  produce  an  infinite  motion,  such  as 
we  assumed  according  to  Proposition  XXVI.,  which  we  admitted  for  the 
present. 

The  fourth  case  is  likewise  impossible,  viz.,  that  the  sphere  is  set  in  motion 
by  an  indivisible  force  residing  in  the  sphere  in  the  same  manner  as  the  soul 
resides  in  the  body  of  man.  For  this  force,  though  indivisible,  could  not  be 
the  cause  of  infinite  motion  by  itself  alone  ;  because  if  that  were  the  case  the 
prime  motor  would  have  an  accidental  motion  (Prop. VI.).  But  things  that 
move  accidentally  must  come  to  rest  (Prop.  VIII.),  and  then  the  thing  comes 
also  to  rest  which  is  set  in  motion.  (The  following  may  serve  as  a  further 
illustration  of  the  nature  of  accidental  motion.  When  man  is  moved  by  the 
soul,  i.e.,  by  his  form,  to  go  from  the  basement  of  the  house  to  the  upper 
storey,  his  body  moves  directly,  while  the  soul,  the  really  efficient  cause  of 
that  motion,  participates  in  it  accidentally.  For  through  the  translation  of 
the  body  from  the  basement  to  the  upper  storey,  the  soul  has  likewise  changed 
its  place,  and  when  no  fresh  impulse  for  the  motion  of  the  body  is  given  by 
the  soul,  the  body  which  has  been  set  in  motion  by  such  impulse  comes  to 
rest,  and  the  accidental  motion  of  the  soul  is  discontinued).  Consequently 
the  motion  of  that  supposed  first  motor  must  be  due  to  some  cause  which 
does  not  form  part  of  things  composed  of  two  elements,  viz.,  a  moving  agent 


THEORY   OF    THE    PHILOSOPHERS  151 

and  an  object  moved  ;  if  such  a  cause  is  present  the  motor  in  that  compound 
sets  the  other  element  in  motion  ;  in  the  absence  of  such  a  cause  no  motion 
takes  place.  Living  beings  do  therefore  not  move  continually,  although 
each  of  them  possesses  an  indivisible  motive  element ;  because  this  element 
is  not  constantly  in  motion,  as  it  would  be  if  it  produced  motion  of  its  own 
accord.  On  the  contrary,  the  things  to  which  the  action  is  due  are  separate 
from  the  motor.  The  action  is  caused  either  by  desire  for  that  which  is 
agreeable,  or  by  aversion  from  that  which  is  disagreeable,  or  by  some  image,  or 
by  some  ideal  when  the  moving  being  has  the  capacity  of  conceiving  it.  When 
any  of  these  causes  are  present  then  the  motor  acts ;  its  motion  is  accidental, 
and  must  therefore  come  to  an  end  (Prop.  VIII.).  If  the  motor  of  the 
sphere  were  of  this  kind  the  sphere  could  not  move  ad  infinitum.  Our 
opponent,  however,  holds  that  the  spheres  move  continually  ad  infinitum  ; 
if  this  were  the  case,  and  it  is  in  fact  possible  (Prop.  XIII.),  the  efficient  cause 
of  the  motion  of  the  sphere  must,  according  to  the  above  division,  be  of  tiic 
second  kind,  viz.,  something  incorporeal  and  separate  from  the  sphere. 

It  may  thus  be  considered  as  proved  that  the  efficient  cause  of  the  motion 
of  the  sphere,  if  that  motion  be  eternal,  is  neither  itself  corporeal  nor  does  it 
reside  in  a  corporeal  object ;  it  must  move  neither  of  its  own  accord  nor 
accidentally  ;  it  must  be  indivisible  and  unchangeable  (Prop.  VII.  and 
Prop.    v.).      This   Prime   Motor  of   the  sphere   is   God,    praised   be  His 

name  ! 

The  hypothesis  that  there  exist  two  Gods  is  inadmissible,  because  abso- 
lutely incorporeal  beings  cannot  be  counted  (Prop.  XVI.),  except  as  cause 
and  effect ;  the  relation  of  time  is  not  applicable  to  God  (Prop.  XV.),  be- 
cause motion  cannot  be  predicated  of  Him. 

The  result  of  the  above  argument  is  consequently  this  :  the  sphere  cannot 
move  ad  infinitum  of  its  own  accord  ;  the  Prime  Motor  is  not  corporeal,  nor 
a  force  residing  within  a  body  ;  it  is  One,  unchangeable,  and  in  its  existence 
independent  of  time.  Three  of  our  postulates  are  thus  proved  by  the  prin- 
cipal philosophers. 

The  philosophers  employ  besides  another  argument,  based  on  the  following 
proposition  of  Aristotle.  If  there  be  a  thing  composed  of  two  elements,  and 
the  one  of  them  is  known  to  exist  also  by  itself,  apart  from  that  thing,  then 
the  other  element  is  likewise  found  in  existence  by  itself  separate  from  that 
compound.  For  if  the  nature  of  the  two  elements  were  such  that  they  could 
only  exist  together— as,  e.g.,  matter  and  form— then  neither  of  them  could 
in  any  way  exist  separate  from  the  other.  The  fact  that  the  one  component 
is  found  also  in  a  separate  existence  proves  that  the  two  elements  arc  not 
indissolubly  connected,  and  that  the  same  must  therefore  be  the  case  with 
the  other  component.  Thus  we  infer  from  the  existence  of  honey-vmegar 
and  of  honey  by  itself,  that  there  exists  also  vinegar  by  itself.  After  havmg 
explained  this  Proposition  Aristotle  continues  thus :  We  notice  many  objects 
consisting  of  a  motor  and  a  motum,  i.e.,  objects  which  set  other  things  in 
motion,  and  whilst  doing  so  are  themselves  set  in  motion  by  other  things  ; 
such  is  clearly  the  case  as  regards  all  the  middle  members  of  a  series  of  things 
in  motion.  We  also  see  a  thing  that  is  moved,  but  docs  not  itself  move  any- 
thing viz.,  the  last  member  of  the  series ;  'consequently  a  motor  must  exist 
without  being  at  the  same  time  a  motum,  and  that  is  the  Prime  Motdt,  which, 


152  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

not  being  subject  to  motion,  is  indivisible,  incorporeal,  and  independent  of 
time,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding  argument. 

Third  Philosophical  .-Argument. — This  is  taken  from  the  words  of  Aristotle, 
though  he  gives  it  in  a  different  form.  It  runs  as  follows  :  There  is  no  doubt 
that  many  things  actually  exist,  as,  e.g.,  things  perceived  with  the  senses. 
Now  there  are  only  three  cases  conceivable,  viz.,  either  all  these  things  are 
without  beginning  and  without  end,  or  all  of  them  have  beginning  and  end, 
or  some  are  with  and  some  without  beginning  and  end.  The  first  of  these 
three  cases  is  altogether  inadmissible,  since  we  clearly  perceive  obj'ects  which 
come  into  existence  and  are  subsequently  destroyed.  The  second  case  is 
likewise  inadmissible,  for  if  everything  had  but  a  temporary  existence  all 
things  might  be  destroyed,  and  that  which  is  enunciated  of  a  whole  class  of 
things  as  possible  is  necessarily  actual.  All  things  must  therefore  come  to  an 
end,  and  then  nothing  would  ever  be  in  existence,  for  there  would  not  exist 
any  being  to  produce  anything.  Consequently  nothing  whatever  would 
exist  [if  all  things  were  transient] ;  but  as  we  see  things  existing,  and  find 
ourselves  in  existence  we  conclude  as  follows : — Since  there  are  undoubtedly 
beings  of  a  temporary  existence,  there  must  also  be  an  eternal  being  that 
is  not  subject  to  destruction,  and  whose  existence  is  real,  not  merely 
possible. 

It  has  been  further  argued  that  the  existence  of  this  being  is  necessary, 
either  on  account  of  itself  alone  or  on  account  of  some  external  force.  In 
the  latter  case  its  existence  and  non-existence  would  be  equally  possible, 
because  of  its  own  properties,  but  its  existence  would  be  necessary  on  account 
of  the  external  force.  That  force  would  then  be  the  being  that  possesses 
absolute  existence  (Prop.  XIX.).  It  is  therefore  certain  that  there  must  be 
a  being  which  has  absolutely  independent  existence,  and  is  the  source  of  the 
existence  of  all  things,  whether  transient  or  permanent,  if,  as  Aristotle  assumes, 
there  is  in  existence  such  a  thing,  which  is  the  effect  of  an  eternal  cause, 
and  must  therefore  itself  be  eternal.  This  is  a  proof  the  correctness  of  which 
is  not  doubted,  disputed,  or  rejected,  except  by  those  who  have  no  know- 
ledge of  the  method  of  proof.  We  further  say  that  the  existence  of  anything 
that  has  independent  existence  is  not  due  to  any  cause  (Prop.  X.),  and  that 
such  a  being  does  not  include  any  plurality  whatever  (Prop.  XXI.) ;  con- 
sequently it  cannot  be  a  body,  nor  a  force  residing  in  a  body  (Prop.  XXII.). 
It  is  now  clear  that  there  must  be  a  being  with  absolutely  independent  ex- 
istence, a  being  whose  existence  cannot  be  attributed  to  any  external  cause, 
and  which  does  not  include  different  elements  ;  it  cannot  therefore  be  cor- 
poreal, or  a  force  residing  in  a  corporeal  object ;  this  being  is  God. 

It  can  easily  be  proved  that  absolutely  independent  existence  cannot  be 
attributed  to  two  beings.  For,  if  that  were  the  case,  absolutely  independent 
existence  would  be  a  property  added  to  the  substance  of  both  ;  neither  of 
them  would  be  absolutely  independent  on  account  of  their  essence,  but  only 
through  a  certain  property,  viz.,  that  of  this  independent  existence,  which  is 
common  to  both.  It  can  besides  be  shown  in  many  ways  that  independent 
existence  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  principle  of  dualism  by  any  means. 
It  would  make  no  difference,  whether  we  imagine  two  beings  of  similar  or 
of  different  properties.  The  reason  for  all  this  is  to  be  sought  in  the  absolute 
simplicity  and  in  the  utmost  perfection  of  the  essence  of  this  being,  which  is 


THEORY    OF    THE    PHILOSOPHERS  153 

the  only  member  of  its  species,  and  does  not  depend  on  any  cause  whatever  ; 
this  being  has  therefore  nothing  in  common  with  other  beings. 

Fourth  Argument. — This  is  likewise  a  well-known  philosophical  argument. 
We  constantly  see  things  passing  from  a  state  of  potentiality  to  that  of  actu- 
ality, but  in  every  such  case  there  is  for  that  transition  of  a  thing  an  agent 
separate  from  it  (Prop.  XVIII.).  It  is  likewise  clear  that  the  agent  has  also 
passed  from  potentiality  to  actuality.  It  has  at  first  been  potential,  because 
it  could  not  be  actual,  owing  to  some  obstacle  contained  in  itself,  or  on 
account  of  the  absence  of  a  certain  relation  between  itself  and  the  object  of 
its  action  ;  it  became  an  actual  agent  as  soon  as  that  relation  was  present. 
Whichever  cause  be  assumed,  an  agent  is  again  necessary  to  remove  the 
obstacle  or  to  create  the  relation.  The  same  can  be  argued  respecting  this 
last-mentioned  agent  that  creates  the  relation  or  removes  the  obstacle. 
This  series  of  causes  cannot  go  on  ad  infinitum  ;  we  must  at  last  arrive  at  a 
cause  of  the  transition  of  an  object  from  the  state  of  potentiality  to  that  of 
actuality,  which  is  constant,  and  admits  of  no  potentiality  whatever.  In 
the  essence  of  this  cause  nothing  exists  potentially,  for  if  its  essence  included 
any  possibility  of  existence  it  would  not  exist  at  all  (Prop.  XXIII.) ;  it  cannot 
be  corporeal,  but  it  must  be  spiritual  (Prop.  XXIV.)  ;  and  the  immaterial 
being  that  includes  no  possibility  whatever,  but  exists  actually  by  its  own 
essence,  is  God.  Since  He  is  incorporeal,  as  has  been  demonstrated,  it  follows 
that  He  is  One  (Prop.  XVI.). 

Even  if  we  were  to  admit  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  we  could  by  any 
of  these  methods  prove  the  existence  of  God  ;  that  He  is  One  and  incorporeal, 
and  that  He  does  not  reside  as  a  force  in  a  corporeal  object. 

The  following  is  likewise  a  correct  method  to  prove  the  Incorporeality  and 
the  Unity  of  God  :  If  there  were  two  Gods,  they  would  necessarily  have  one 
element  in  common  by  virtue  of  which  they  were  Gods,  and  another  element 
by  which  they  were  distinguished  from  each  other  and  existed  as  two  Gods ; 
the  distinguishing  element  would  either  be  in  both  different  from  the  pro- 
perty common  to  both— in  that  case  both  of  them  would  consist  of  different 
elements,  and  neither  of  them  would  be  the  First  Cause,  or  have  absolutely 
independent  existence  ;  but  their  existence  would  depend  on  certain  causes 
(Prop.  XIX.)--or  the  distinguishing  element  would  only  in  one  of  them  be 
different  from  the  element  common  to  both  :  then  that  being  could  not  have 
absolute  independence. 

Another  proof  of  the  Unity  of  God.— It  has  been  demonstrated  by  proof  that 
the  whole  existing  world  is  one  organic  body,  all  parts  of  which  are  con- 
nected together ;  also,  that  the  influences  of  the  spheres  above  pervade  the 
earthly  substance  and  prepare  it  for  its  forms.  Hence  it  is  impossible  to 
assume  that  one  deity  be  engaged  in  forming  one  part,  and  another  deity  in 
forming  another  part  of  that  organic  body  of  which  all  parts  are  closely 
connected  together.  A  duality  could  only  be  imagined  in  this  way,  either 
that  at  one  time  the  one  deity  is  active,  the  other  at  another  time,  or  that 
both  act  simultaneously,  nothing  being  done  except  by  both  together.  The 
first  alternative  is  certainly  absurd  for  many  reasons ;  if  at  the  time  the  one 
deity  be  active  the  other  could  also  be  active,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  one 
deity  should  then  act  and  the  other  not ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  im- 
possible for  the  one  deity  to  act  when  the  other  is  at  work,  there  must  be 


154  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

some  other  cause  [besides  these  deities]  which  [at  a  certain  time]  enables 
the  one  to  act  and  disables  the  other.  [Such  difference  would  not  be  caused 
by  time],  since  time  is  without  change,  and  the  object  of  the  action  likewise 
remains  one  and  the  same  organic  whole.  Besides,  if  two  deities  existed  in 
this  way,  both  would  be  subject  to  the  relations  of  time,  since  their  actions 
would  depend  on  time  ;  they  would  also  in  the  moment  of  acting  pass  from 
potentiality  to  actuality,  and  require  an  agent  for  such  transition  ;  their 
essence  would  besides  include  possibility  [of  existence].  It  is  equally  absurd 
to  assume  that  both  together  produce  everything  in  existence,  and  that 
neither  of  them  does  anything  alone  ;  for  when  a  number  of  forces  must  be 
united  for  a  certain  result,  none  of  these  forces  acts  of  its  own  accord,  and 
none  is  by  itself  the  immediate  cause  of  that  result,  but  their  union  is  the 
immediate  cause.  It  has,  furthermore,  been  proved  that  the  action  of  the 
absolute  cannot  be  due  to  an  [external]  cause.  The  union  is  also  an  act  which 
presupposes  a  cause  effecting  that  union,  and  if  that  cause  be  one,  it  is  un- 
doubtedly God  ;  but  if  it  also  consists  of  a  number  of  separate  forces,  a  cause 
is  required  for  the  combination  of  these  forces,  as  in  the  first  case.  Finally, 
one  simple  being  must  be  arrived  at,  that  is  the  cause  of  the  existence  of  the 
Universe,  which  is  one  whole  ;  it  would  make  no  difference  whether  we 
assumed  that  the  First  Cause  had  produced  the  Universe  by  creatio  ex  nihilo, 
or  whether  the  Universe  co-existed  with  the  First  Cause.  It  is  thus  clear 
how  we  can  prove  the  Unity  of  God  from  the  fact  that  this  Universe  is  one 
whole. 

Another  argument  concerning  the  Incorporeality  of  God. — Every  corporeal 
object  is  composed  of  matter  and  form  (Prop.  XXII.)  ;  every  compound  of 
these  two  elements  requires  an  agent  for  effecting  their  combination.  Be- 
sides, it  is  evident  that  a  body  is  divisible  and  has  dimensions ;  a  body  is  thus 
undoubtedly  subject  to  accidents.  Consequently  nothing  corporeal  can  be 
a  unity,  either  because  everything  corporeal  is  divisible  or  because  it  is  a 
compound  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  can  logically  be  analysed  into  two  elements ; 
because  a  body  can  only  be  said  to  be  a  certain  body  when  the  distinguishing 
element  is  added  to  the  corporeal  substratum,  and  must  therefore  include 
two  elements ;  but  it  has  been  proved  that  the  Absolute  admits  of  no  dualism 
whatever. 

Now  that  we  have  discussed  these  proofs,  wc  will  expound  our  own  method 
in  accordance  vnth  our  promise. 

CHAPTER  II 

The  fifth  essence,  i.e.,  the  heavenly  spheres,  must  either  be  transient,  and  in 
this  case  motion  would  likewise  be  temporary,  or,  as  our  opponent  assumes, 
it  must  be  eternal.  If  the  spheres  are  transient,  then  God  is  their  Creator  ; 
for  if  anything  comes  into  existence  after  a  period  of  non-existence,  it  is  self- 
evident  that  an  agent  exists  which  has  effected  this  result.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  contend  that  the  thing  itself  effected  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  heavenly  spheres  be  eternal,  with  a  regular  perpetual  motion,  the  cause 
of  this  perpetual  motion,  according  to  the  Propositions  enumerated  in  the 
Introduction,  must  be  something  that  is  neither  a  body,  nor  a  force  residing 
in  a  body,  and  that  is  God,  praised  be  His  name  !     We  have  thus  shown  that 


EXISTENCE    OF    GOD  155 

whether  we  believe  in  the  Creatio  ex  Nihilo,  or  in  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe, 
we  can  prove  by  demonstrative  arguments  the  existence  of  God,  i.e.,  an 
absolute  Being,  whose  existence  cannot  be  attributed  to  any  cause,  or  admit 
in  itself  any  potentiality.  The  theory  that  God  is  One  and  Incorporeal  has 
likewise  been  established  by  proof  without  any  reference  to  the  theory  of 
the  Creation  or  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  This  has  been  explained  by 
us  in  the  third  philosophical  argument  [in  support  of  the  Existence  of  God], 
and  also  in  our  subsequent  description  of  the  methods  of  the  philosophers 
in  proving  the  Incorporeality  and  the  Unity  of  God. 

We  deem  it  now  convenient  to  continue  with  the  theory  of  the  philoso- 
phers, and  to  give  their  proofs  for  the  existence  of  Intelligences.  We  will 
then  show  that  their  theory  in  this  regard  is  in  harmony  wnth  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  concerning  the  existence  of  angels.  After  the  full  treatment  of 
this  subject  we  shall  return  to  our  task  and  discuss  the  theory  of  creatio  ex 
nihilo.  For  the  best  arguments  in  favour  of  this  theory  cannot  be  fully 
comprehended  unless  the  theory  of  the  existence  of  Intelligences  be  well 
understood,  and  also  the  method  which  I  adopt  in  proving  their  existence. 
We  must,  however,  first  give  the  following  note,  which  will  introduce  you 
into  the  secrets  of  this  whole  subject,  both  of  that  v/hich  we  have  already 
given  and  of  what  will  yet  be  given. 

Note. — It  was  not  my  intention  when  writing  this  treatise  to  expound 
natural  science  or  discuss  metaphysical  systems ;  it  was  not  my  object  to 
prove  truths  which  have  already  been  demonstrated,  or  describe  the  number 
and  the  properties  of  the  spheres :  for  the  books  written  on  these  subjects 
serve  their  purpose,  and  if  in  some  points  they  are  not  satisfactory,  I  do  not 
think  that  what  I  could  say  would  be  better  than  what  has  already  been  ex- 
plained by  others.  But  my  intention  was,  as  has  been  stated  in  the  Intro- 
duction, to  expound  Biblical  passages  which  have  been  impugned,  and  to 
elucidate  their  hidden  and  true  sense,  which  is  above  the  comprehension  of 
the  multitude.  When  you  therefore  notice  that  I  prove  the  existence  and 
number  of  Intelligences  or  the  number  of  the  spheres,  with  the  causes  of 
their  motion,  or  discuss  the  true  relation  of  matter  and  form,  the  meaning 
of  Divine  manifestation,  or  similar  subjects,  you  must  not  think  that  I  intend 
merely  to  establish  a  certain  philosophical  proposition  ;  for  these  subjects 
have  been  discussed  in  many  books,  and  most  of  them  have  been  demonstrated 
by  proof.  I  only  desire  to  mention  that  which  might,  when  well  understood, 
serve  as  a  means  of  removing  some  of  the  doubts  concerning  anythmg  taught  in 
Scripture  ;  and  indeed  many  difficulties  will  disappear  when  that  which  I  am 
about  to  explain  is  taken  into  consideration.  From  the  Introduction  to  this 
treatise  you  may  learn  that  its  principal  object  is  to  expound,  as  far  as  can  be 
done,  the  account  of  the  Creation  (Gen.  i.-iii.),  and  of  the  Divine  Ch.iriot 
(Ezek.  i.),  and  to  answer  questions  raised  in  respect  to  Prophecy  and  to  the 
knowledge  of  God.  You  will  sometimes  notice  that  I  am  rather  explicit  on 
truths  already  ascertained  ;  some  of  them  Natural  Philosophy  has  established 
as  facts ;  others  Metaphysics  has  either  fully  demonstrated,  or  at  least  shown 
to  be  worthy  of  belief ;  others  Mathematics  have  made  plain.  But  you  will 
invariably  find  that  my  exposition  includes  the  key  for  the  understanding  cf 
some  allegorical  passage  of  Holy  Writ  and  its  esoteric  interpretation,  and  that 
I  have  mentioned,  explained,  and  demonstrated  the  subject  only  because  u 


156  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

furthers  the  knowledge  of  the  "  Divine  Chariot,"  or  "  the  Creation,"  or 
explains  some  principle  with  respect  to  Prophecy,  or  to  the  belief  in  any  of 
the  truths  taught  in  Scripture.  Now,  having  made  this  statement,  we  return 
to  the  subject  of  which  we  began  to  treat. 

CHAPTER  III 

Th  e  theory  of  Aristotle  in  respect  to  the  causes  of  the  motion  of  the  spheres 
led  him  to  assume  the  existence  of  Intelligences.  Although  this  theory  con- 
sists of  assertions  which  cannot  be  proved,  yet  it  is  the  least  open  to  doubt, 
and  is  more  systematic  than  any  other,  as  has  been  stated  by  Alexander  in 
the  book  called  The  Origin  of  the  Universe.  It  includes  maxims  which  are 
identical  wdth  those  taught  in  Scripture,  and  it  is  to  a  still  greater  extent  in 
harmony  with  doctrines  contained  in  well-known  genuine  Midrashim,  as 
will  be  explained  by  me.  For  this  reason  I  will  cite  his  views  and  his  proofs, 
and  collect  from  them  what  coincides  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  and 
agrees  with  the  doctrine  held  by  our  Sages. 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  enunciation  that  the  heavenly  sphere  is  endowed  with  a  soul  will  appear 
reasonable  to  all  who  sufficiently  reflect  on  it ;  but  at  first  thought  they  may 
find  it  unintelligible  or  even  objectionable ;  because  they  wrongly  assume 
that  when  we  ascribe  a  soul  to  the  heavenly  spheres  we  mean  something  like 
the  soul  of  man,  or  that  of  an  ass,  or  ox.  We  merely  intend  to  say  that  the 
locomotion  of  the  sphere  undoubtedly  leads  us  to  assume  some  inherent 
principle  by  which  it  moves ;  and  this  principle  is  certainly  a  soul.  For  it 
would  be  absurd  to  assume  that  the  principle  of  the  circular  motion  of  the 
spheres  was  like  that  of  the  rectilinear  motion  of  a  stone  downward  or  of  fire 
upwards,  for  the  cause  of  the  latter  motion  is  a  natural  property  and  not  a 
soul ;  a  thing  set  in  motion  by  a  natural  property  moves  only  as  long  as  it  is 
away  from  the  proper  place  of  its  element,  but  when  it  has  again  arrived  there, 
it  comes  to  rest ;  whilst  the  sphere  continues  its  circular  motion  in  its  own 
place.  It  is,  however,  not  because  the  sphere  has  a  soul,  that  it  moves  in  this 
manner ;  for  animate  beings  move  either  by  instinct  or  by  reason.  By 
"  instinct  "  I  mean  the  intention  of  an  animal  to  approach  something  agree- 
able, or  to  retreat  from  something  disagreeable  ;  e.g.,  to  approach  the  water 
it  seeks  because  of  thirst,  or  to  retreat  from  the  sun  because  of  its  heat.  It 
makes  no  difference  whether  that  thing  really  exists  or  is  merely  imaginary, 
since  the  imagination  of  something  agreeable  or  of  something  disagreeable 
likewise  causes  the  animal  to  move.  The  heavenly  sphere  does  not  move 
for  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  from  what  is  bad  or  approaching  what  is 
good.  For  in  the  first  instance  it  moves  toward  the  same  point  from  which 
it  has  moved  away,  and  vice  versa  it  moves  away  from  the  same  point 
towards  which  it  has  moved.  Secondly,  if  this  were  the  object  of  the 
motion,  we  should  expect  that  the  sphere  would  move  towards  a  certain 
point,  and  would  then  rest ;  for  if  it  moved  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding 
something,  and  never  obtained  that  object,  the  motion  would  be  in  vain. 
The   circular    motion  of  the  sphere    is   consequently  due  to  the  action  of 


THE    SPHERES    AND   THE   INTELLIGENCES      157 

some  idea  which  produces  this  particular  kind  of  motion  ;  but  as  ideas 
are  only  possible  in  intellectual  beings,  the  heavenly  sphere  is  an 
intellecual  iDeing.  But  even  a  being  that  is  endowed  with  the  faculty  of 
forming  an  idea,  and  possesses  a  soul  with  the  faculty  of  moving,  does  not 
change  its  place  on  each  occasion  that  it  forms  an  idea  ;  for  an  idea  alone 
does  not  produce  motion,  as  has  been  explained  in  [Aristotle's]  Metaphysics. 
We  can  easily  understand  this,  when  we  consider  how  often  we  form  ideas  of 
certain  things,  yet  do  not  move  towards  them,  though  we  are  able  to  do  so  ; 
it  is  only  when  a  desire  arises  for  the  thing  imagined,  that  wc  move  in  order 
to  obtain  it.  We  have  thus  shown  that  both  the  soul,  the  principle  of 
motion,  and  the  intellect,  the  source  of  the  ideas,  would  not  produce  motion 
without  the  existence  of  a  desire  for  the  object  of  which  an  idea  has  been 
formed.  It  follows  that  the  heavenly  sphere  must  have  a  desire  for  the  ideal 
which  it  has  comprehended,  and  that  ideal,  for  which  it  has  a  desire,  is  God, 
exalted  be  His  name  !  When  we  say  that  God  moves  the  spheres,  we  mean 
it  in  the  following  sense  :  the  spheres  have  a  desire  to  become  similar  to  the 
ideal  comprehended  by  them.  This  ideal,  however,  is  simple  in  the  strictest 
sense  of  the  word,  and  not  subject  to  any  change  or  alteration,  but  constant 
in  producing  everything  good,  whilst  the  spheres  are  corporeal ;  the  latter 
can  therefore  not  be  like  this  ideal  in  any  other  way,  except  in  the  production 
of  circular  motion  ;  for  this  is  the  only  action  of  corporeal  beings  that  can 
be  perpetual ;  it  is  the  most  simple  motion  of  a  body  ;  there  is  no  change  in 
the  essence  of  the  sphere,  nor  in  the  beneficial  results  of  its  motion. 

When  Aristotle  had  arrived  at  this  result,  he  further  investigated  the  sub- 
ject, and  found,  by  proof,  that  there  were  many  spheres,  and  that  all  moved 
in  circles,  but  each  with  its  peculiar  motion  as  regards  velocity  and  direction. 
He  naturally  argued  that  the  ideal  comprehended  by  the  one  sphere,  which 
completes  its  circuit  in  one  day,  is  different  from  that  of  another  sphere  which 
completes  its  circuit  in  thirty  years ;  he  thus  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
there  were  as  many  ideals  as  there  were  spheres ;  each  sphere  has  a  desire  for 
that  ideal  which  is  the  source  of  its  existence,  and  that  desire  is  the  cause  of 
its  individual  motion,  so  that  in  fact  the  ideal  sets  the  sphere  in  motion. 
Aristotle  does  not  say,  nor  does  any  other  authority,  that  there  are  ten  or  a 
hundred  ideals  ;  he  simply  states  that  their  number  agrees  with  that  of  the 
spheres.  When,  therefore,  some  of  his  contemporaries  held  that  the  number 
of  spheres  was  fifty,  he  said,  if  that  was  true,  the  number  of  ideals  must  like- 
wise be  fifty.  For  the  scholars  in  his  time  were  few  and  possessed  but  im- 
perfect learning  ;  they  thought  that  there  must  be  a  separate  sphere  for  each 
movement,  because  they  did  not  know  that  what  appear  to  be  several  distinct 
movements  can  be  explained  as  resulting  from  the  inclination  of  one  spliere 
as  is,  e.g.,  the  case  with  the  change  in  the  longitude  of  a  star,  its  declination 
and  the  places  of  its  rising  and  setting  noticed  in  the  circle  of  the  horizon. 
This  point,  however,  does  not  concern  us  at  present ;  let  us  therefore  return 
to  our  subject. 

The  later  philosophers  assumed  ten  Intelligences,  because  they  counted 
the  spheres  containing  stars  and  the  all-encompassing  sphere,  although  some 
of  the  spheres  included  several  distinct  orbits.  There  are  altogether  nine 
spheres,  viz.,  the  all-encompassing  sphere,  that  of  the  fixed  stars,  and  those 
of  the  seven  planets ;    nine  Intelligences  correspond  to  the  nine  spheres  ; 


158  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  tenth  Intelligence  is  the  Active  Intellect.  The  existence  of  the  latter 
is  proved  by  the  transition  of  our  intellect  from  a  state  of  potentiality  to  that 
of  actuality,  and  bv  the  same  transition  in  the  case  of  the  forms  of  all  tran- 
sient beings.  For  whatever  passes  from  potentiality  into  actuality,  requires 
for  that  transition  an  external  agent  of  the  same  kind  as  itself.  Thus  the 
builder  does  not  build  the  storehouse  in  his  capacity  of  workman,  but  in  that 
of  a  person  that  has  the  form  of  the  storehouse  in  his  mind  ;  and  that  form 
of  the  building  which  exists  in  the  mind  of  the  builder  caused  the  transition 
of  the  potential  form  of  the  storehouse  into  actuality,  and  impressed  it  on 
the  material  of  the  building.  As  that  which  gives  form  to  matter  must  itself 
be  pure  form,  so  the  source  of  intellect  must  itself  be  pure  intellect,  and  this 
source  is  the  Active  Intellect.  The  relation  of  the  latter  to  the  elements  and 
their  compounds  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Intelligences  to  their  respective 
spheres ;  and  our  intellect  in  action,  which  originates  in  the  Active  Intellect, 
and  enables  us  to  comprehend  that  intellect,  finds  a  parallel  in  the  intellect 
of  each  of  the  spheres  which  originates  in  the  Intelligence  corresponding 
to  that  sphere,  and  enables  the  sphere  to  comprehend  that  Intelligence,  to 
form  an  idea  of  it,  and  to  move  in  seeking  to  become  similar  to  it. 

Aristotle  further  infers,  what  has  already  been  explained,  that  God  does 
not  act  by  means  of  direct  contact.  When,  e.g.,  He  destroys  anything  with 
fire,  the  fire  is  set  in  motion  through  the  movement  of  the  spheres,  and  the 
spheres  by  the  Intelligences ;  the  latter,  which  are  identical  with  "  the  angels," 
and  act  by  direct  influence,  are  consequently,  each  in  its  turn,  the  cause  of 
the  motion  of  the  spheres  ;  as  however,  purely  spiritual  beings  do  not  differ 
in  their  essence,  and  are  by  no  means  discrete  quantities,  he  (Aristotle)  came 
to  the  following  conclusion  :  God  created  the  first  Intelligence,  the  motive 
agent  of  the  first  sphere  ;  the  Intelligence  which  causes  the  second  sphere  to 
move  has  its  source  and  origin  in  the  first  Intelligence,  and  so  on  ;  the  Intelli- 
gence which  sets  the  sphere  nearest  to  the  earth  in  motion  is  the  source  and 
origin  of  the  Active  Intellect,  the  last  in  the  series  of  purely  spiritual  beings. 
The  series  of  material  bodies  similarly  begins  with  the  uppermost  sphere, 
and  ends  with  the  elements  and  their  compounds.  The  Intelligence  which 
moves  the  uppermost  sphere  cannot  be  the  Absolute  Being,  for  there  is  an 
element  common  to  all  Intelligences,  namely,  the  property  of  being  the 
motive  agent  of  a  sphere,  and  there  is  another  element  by  which  each  of  them 
is  distinguished  from  the  rest ;  each  of  the  ten  Intelligences  includes,  there- 
fore, two  elements,  and  consequently  another  being  must  be  the  First 
Cause. 

This  is  the  theory  and  opinion  of  Aristotle  on  these  questions,  and  his 
proofs,  where  proof  is  possible,  are  given  in  various  works  of  the  Aristotelian 
school.  In  short,  he  believes  that  the  spheres  are  animated  and  intellectual 
beings,  capable  of  fully  comprehending  the  frincipia  of  their  existence  ;  that 
there  exist  purely  spiritual  beings  (Intelligences),  which  do  not  reside  in 
corporeal  objects,  and  which  derive  existence  from  God  ;  and  that  these 
form  the  intermediate  element  between  God  and  this  material  world. 

In  the  cliapters  which  follow  I  will  show  how  far  the  teaching  of  Scripture 
is  in  harmony  with  these  views,  and  how  far  it  differs  from  them. 


THE   SPHERES    AND   THE   INTELLIGENCES      159 

CHAPTER  V 

Scripture  supports  the  theory  that  the  spheres  are  animate  and  intellectual, 
i.e.,  capable  of  comprehending  things  ;  that  they  are  not,  as  ignorant  persons 
believe,  inanimate  masses  like  fire  and  earth,  but  are,  as  the  philosophers 
assert,  endowed  with  life,  and  serve  their  Lord,  whom  they  mightily  praise  and 
glorify  ;  comp.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,"  etc.  (Ps.  xrx.  2). 
It  is  a  great  error  to  think  that  this  is  a  mere  figure  of  speech  ;  for  the  verbs 
"  to  declare  "  and  "  to  relate,"  when  joined  together,  arc,  in  Hebrew,  only 
used  of  intellectual  beings.  That  the  Psalmist  really  means  to  describe  the 
heavens' own  doing,  in  other  words,  what  the  spheres  actually  do,  and  not  what 
man  thinks  of  them,  may  be  best  inferred  from  the  words,  "  There  is  no 
speech,  nor  language,  their  voice  is  not  heard  "  (ver.  4).  Here  he  clearly 
shows  that  he  describes  the  heavens  themselves  as  in  reality  praising  God, 
and  declaring  His  wonders  without  words  of  lip  and  tongue.  When  man 
praises  God  in  words  actually  uttered,  he  only  relates  the  ideas  which  he  has 
conceived,  but  these  ideas  form  the  real  praise.  The  reason  why  he  gives 
expression  to  these  ideas  is  to  be  found  in  his  desire  to  communicate  them 
to  others,  or  to  make  himself  sure  that  he  has  truly  conceived  them.  There- 
fore it  is  said,  "  Commune  with  your  own  heart  upon  your  bed,  and  be 
still  "  (Ps.  iv.  5).  Only  ignorant  or  obstinate  persons  would  refuse  to  admit 
this  proof  taken  from  Scripture. 

As  to  the  opinion  of  our  Sages,  I  do  not  see  any  necessity  for  expounding 
or  demonstrating  it.  Consider  only  the  form  they  gave  to  the  blessing 
recited  on  seeing  the  new  moon,  the  ideas  repeatedly  occurring  in  the  prayers 
and  the  remarks  in  the  Midrash  on  the  following  and  similar  passages  : — 
"  And  the  host  of  heaven  worshippeth  thee  "  (Neh.  ix.  6)  ;  "  When  the 
morning  stars  sang  together,  and  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy  "  (Job 
xxxviii.  7).  In  Bereshit  Rabba,  on  the  passage—"  And  the  earth  was  empty 
and  formless  "  (Gen.  i.  2),  our  Sages  remark  as  follows  :  "  The  words  tohu  and 
bohu  mean  mourning  and  crying  ;  the  earth  mourned  and  cried  on  account 
of  her  evil  lot,  saying,  '  I  and  the  heavens  were  created  together,  and  yet  the 
beings  above  live  for  ever,  and  we  are  mortal.'  "  Our  Sages,  by  this  remark, 
indicate  their  belief  that  the  spheres  are  animated  beings,  and  not  inanimate 
matter  like  the  elements. 

The  opinion  of  Aristotle,  that  the  spheres  are  capable  of  comprehension 
and  conception,  is  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  our  prophets  and  our 
theologians  or  Sages.  The  philosophers  fuirher  agree  that  this  world  below 
is  governed  by  influences  emanating  from  the  spheres,  and  that  the  Litter 
comprehend  and  have  knowledge  of  the  things  which  they  influence.  This 
theory  is  also  met  with  in  Scripture ;  comp.  [the  stars  and  all  the  host  of 
heaven]  "  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  divided  unto  all  nations  "  (Dcut. 
iv.  19),  that  is  to  say,  the  stars,  which  God  appointed  to  be  the  means  of 
governing  His  creatures,  and  not  the  objects  of  man's  worship.  It  has  there- 
fore been  stated  clearly  :  "  And  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the  night  " 
(Gen.  i.  18).  The  term  "  ruling  "  here  refers  to  the  power  which  the  spheres 
possess  of  governing  the  earth,  in  addition  to  the  property  of  giving  light  and 
darkness.  The  latter  property  is  the  direct  cause  of  genesis  and  destruction  j 
it  is  described  in  the  words,  "  And  to  divide  the  light  from  the  darkness " 
(i^jW.).     It  is  impossible  to  assume  that  those  who  rule  a  thing  are  ignorant 


i6o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

of  that  very  thing  which  they  rule,  if  we  take  "  to  rule  "  iu  its  proper  sense. 
We  will  add  another  chapter  on  this  subject. 

CHAPTER  VI 

As  for  the  existence  of  angels,  there  is  no  necessity  to  cite  any  proof  from 
Scripture,  where  the  fact  is  frequently  mentioned.  The  term  elohim  signi- 
fies "  judges  "  ;  comp.  "  The  cause  of  both  parties  shall  come  before  the 
'  judges '  "  {ha-elohim  ;  Exod.  xxii.  8).  It  has  been  figuratively  applied  to 
angels,  and  to  the  Creator  as  being  Judge  over  the  angels.  When  God  says, 
"I  am  the  Lord  your  God,"  the  pronoun  "your"  refers  to  all  mankind;  but 
in  the  phrase  elohe  ha-elohim,Y{t  is  described  as  the  God  of  the  angels, and  in. 
adoneha-adonim,&s  the  Lord  of  the  spheres  and  the  stars,  which  are  the  masters 
of  the  rest  of  the  corporeal  creation.  The  nouns  elohim  and  adonim  in  these 
phrases  do  not  refer  to  human  judges  or  masters,  because  these  are  in  rank 
inferior  to  the  heavenly  bodies ;  much  less  do  they  refer  to  mankind  in 
general,  including  masters  and  servants,  or  to  objects  of  stone  and  wood 
worshipped  by  some  as  gods ;  for  it  is  no  honour  or  greatness  to  God  to  be 
superior  to  stone,  wood,  or  a  piece  of  metal.  The  phrases  therefore  admit  of 
no  other  meaning  than  this :  God  is  the  Judge  over  the  judges ;  i.e.,  over 
the  angels,  and  the  Lord  over  the  spheres. 

We  have  already  stated  above  that  the  angels  are  incorporeal.  This  agrees 
with  the  opinion  of  Aristotle  :  there  is  only  this  difference  in  the  names  em- 
ployed— he  uses  the  term  "  Intelligences,"  and  we  say  instead  "  angels." 
His  theory  is  that  the  Intelligences  are  intermediate  beings  between  the 
Prime  Cause  and  existing  things,  and  that  they  effect  the  motion  of  the 
spheres,  on  which  motion  the  existence  of  all  things  depends.  This  is  also 
the  view  we  meet  with  in  all  parts  of  Scripture  ;  every  act  of  God  is  described 
as  being  performed  by  angels.  But  "  angel  "  means  "  messenger  "  ;  hence 
every  one  that  is  intrusted  with  a  certain  mission  is  an  angel.  Even  the 
movements  of  the  brute  creation  are  sometimes  due  to  the  action  of  an  angel, 
when  such  movements  serve  the  purpose  of  the  Creator,  who  endowed  it 
with  the  power  of  performing  that  movement ;  e.g.,  "  God  hath  sent  His 
angel,  and  hath  shut  the  lions'  mouths  that  they  have  not  hurt  me  "  (Dan. 
vi.  22).  Another  instance  may  be  seen  in  the  movements  of  Balaam's  ass, 
described  as  caused  by  an  angel.  The  elements  are  also  called  angels.  Comp. 
"  Who  maketh  winds  His  angels,  flaming  fire  His  ministers  "  (Ps.  civ.  4). 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  word  "  angel  "  is  used  of  a  messenger  sent  by 
man  ;  e.g.,  "  And  Jacob  sent  angels  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  4)  ;  of  a  prophet,  e.g., 
"  And  an  angel  of  the  Lord  came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim  "  (Judges  ii.  l)  ; 
"  And  He  sent  an  angel,  and  hath  brought  us  forth  out  of  Egypt "  (Num. 
XX.  16).  It  is  also  used  of  ideals,  perceived  by  prophets  in  prophetic  visions, 
and  of  man's  animal  powers,  as  will  be  explained  in  another  place. 

When  we  assert  that  Scripture  teaches  that  God  rules  this  world  through 
angels,  we  mean  such  angels  as  are  identical  with  the  Intelligences.  In  some 
passages  the  plural  is  used  of  God,  e.g.,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image  " 
(Gen.  i.  26)  ;  "  Go  to,  let  us  go  down,  and  there  confound  their  language  " 
{ibid.  xi.  7).  Our  Sages  explain  this  in  the  following  manner :  God,  as  it 
were,  does  nothing  without  contemplating  the  host  above.     I  wonder  at  the 


THE   SPHERES   AND   THE   INTELLIGENCES       Un 

expression  "  contemplating,"  which  is  the  very  expression  us<;i.l  by  Plato  : 
God,  as  it  were,  "  contemplates  the  world  of  ideals,  and  thus  produces  the 
existing  beings."  In  other  passages  our  Sages  expressed  it  more  decidedly  : 
"  God  does  nothing  without  consulting  the  host  above  "  (the  word  fnmilia, 
used  in  the  original,  is  a  Greek  noun,  and  signifies  "  host").  On  the  words, 
"what  they  have  already  made"  (Eccles.  ii.  12),  the  following  remark  is 
made  in  Bereshit  Rabba  and  in  Midrash  Kohelcth :  "  It  is  not  said  '  what 
He  has  made,'  but  '  what  they  have  made  ' ;  hence  we  infer  that  He,  as  it 
were,  with  His  court,  have  agreed  upon  the  form  of  each  of  the  limbs  of  man 
before  placing  it  in  its  position,  as  it  is  said,  '  He  hath  made  thee  and  estab- 
lished thee  '  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  6).  In  Bereshit  Rabba  (chap,  li.)  it  is  also  stated, 
that  wherever  the  term  "  and  the  Lord  "  occurred  in  Scripture,  the  Lord 
with  His  court  is  to  be  understood.  These  passages  do  not  convey  the  idea 
that  God  spoke,  thought^  reflected,  or  that  He  consulted  and  employed  the 
opinion  of  other  beings,  as  ignorant  persons  have  believed.  How  could  the 
Creator  be  assisted  by  those  whom  He  created  !  They  only  show  that  all 
parts  of  the  Universe,  even  the  limbs  of  animals  in  their  actual  form,  are  pro- 
duced through  angels ;  for  natural  forces  and  angels  are  identical.  How 
bad  and  injurious  is  the  blindness  of  ignorance  !  Say  to  a  person  who  is 
believed  to  belong  to  the  wise  men  of  Israel  that  the  Almighty  sends  His 
angel  to  enter  the  womb  of  a  woman  and  to  form  there  the  foetus,  he  wall  be 
satisfied  with  the  account ;  he  will  believe  it,  and  even  find  in  it  a  description 
of  the  greatness  of  God's  might  and  wisdom  ;  although  he  believes  that  the 
angel  consists  of  burning  fire,  and  is  as  big  as  a  third  part  of  the  Universe^  yet 
he  considers  it  possible  as  a  divine  miracle.  But  tell  him  that  God  gave  the 
seed  a  formative  power  which  produces  and  shapes  the  limbs,  and  that  this 
power  is  called  "  angel,"  or  that  all  forms  are  the  result  of  the  influence  of 
the  Active  Intellect,  and  that  the  latter  is  the  angel,  the  Prince  of  the  world, 
frequently  mentioned  by  our  Sages,  and  he  will  turn  away  ;  because  he  can- 
not comprehend  the  true  greatness  and  power  of  creating  forces  that  act  in 
a  body  without  being  perceived  by  our  senses.  Our  Sages  have  already 
stated — for  him  who  has  understanding — that  all  forces  that  reside  in  a  body 
are  angels,  much  more  the  forces  that  are  active  in  the  Universe.  The  theory 
that  each  force  acts  only  in  one  particular  way,  is  expressed  in  Bereshit  Rabba 
(chap.  1.)  as  follows  :  "  One  angel  does  not  perform  two  things,  and  two 
angels  do  not  perform  one  thing  "  ;  this  is  exactly  the  property  of  all  forces. 
We  may  find  a  confirmation  of  the  opinion  that  the  natural  and  psychical 
forces  of  an  individual  are  called  angels  in  a  statement  of  our  Sages  which  is 
frequently  quoted,  and  occurs  originally  in  Bereshit  Rabba  (chap.  Ixxvni.)  : 
"  Every  day  God  creates  a  legion  of  angels ;  they  sing  before  Him,  and  dis- 
appear." When,  in  opposition  to  this  statement,  other  statements  were  quoted 
to  the  effect  that  angels  are  eternal— and,  in  fact,  it  has  repeatedly  been  shown 
that  they  live  permanently— the  reply  has  been  given  that  some  angels  live 
permanently,  others  perish  ;  and  this  is  really  the  case  ;  for  individu-il  forces 
are  transient,  whilst  the  genera  are  permanent  and  imperishable.  Agam,  we 
read  (in  Bereshit  Rabba,  chap.  Ixxxv.),  in  reference  to  the  relation  between 
Judah  and  Tamar  :  "  R.  Jochanan  said  that  Judah  was  about  to  pass  by 
[without  noticing  Tamar],  but  God  caused  the  angel  of  lust,  i.e.,  the  libidi- 
nous disposition,  to  present  himself  to  him."     Man's  disposition  is  here  called 


1 62  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

an  angel.  Likewise  we  frequently  meet  with  the  phrase  "  the  angel  set  over 
a  certain  thing."  In  Midrash-Koheleth  (on  Eccles.  x.  7)  the  following  passage 
occurs :  "  When  man  sleeps,  his  soul  speaks  to  the  angel,  the  angel  to  the 
cherub."  The  intelligent  reader  will  find  here  a  clear  statement  that  man's 
imaginative  faculty  is  also  called  "  angel,"  and  that  "  cherub  "  is  used  for 
man's  intellectual  faculty.  How  beautiful  must  this  appear  to  him  who 
understands  it ;  how  absurd  to  the  ignorant ! 

We  have  already  stated  that  the  forms  in  which  angels  appear  form  part  of 
the  prophetic  vision.  Some  prophets  see  angels  in  the  form  of  man,  e.g., 
"  And  behold  three  men  stood  by  him  "  (Gen.  xviii.  2) ;  others  perceive  an 
angel  as  a  fearful  and  terrible  being,  e.g.,  "  And  his  countenance  was  as  the 
countenance  of  an  angel  of  God,  very  terrible  "  (Judges  xiii.  6)  ;  others  see 
them  as  fire,  e.g.,  "  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  in  a  flame  of 
fire"  (Exod.  iii.  2).  In  Bereshit  Rabba  (chap.  1.)  the  following  remark 
occurs :  "  To  Abraham,  whose  prophetic  power  was  great,  the  angels 
appeared  in  the  form  of  men  ;  to  Lot,  whose  power  was  weak,  they  appeared 
as  angels."  This  is  an  important  principle  as  regards  Prophecy ;  it  will  be 
fully  discussed  when  we  treat  of  that  subject  (chap,  xxxii.  sqq).  Another 
passage  in  Bereshit  Rabba  {ibid)  runs  thus :  "  Before  the  angels  have 
accomplished  their  task  they  are  called  men,  when  they  have  accomplished  it 
they  are  angels."  Consider  how  clearly  they  say  that  the  term  "  angel " 
signifies  nothing  but  a  certain  action,  and  that  every  appearance  of  an  angel 
is  part  of  a  prophetic  vision,  depending  on  the  capacity  of  the  person  that 
perceives  it. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  opinion  of  Aristotle  on  this  subject  contrary  to  the 
teaching  of  Scripture.  The  whole  difference  between  him  and  ourselves  is 
this :  he  believes  all  these  beings  to  be  eternal,  co-existing  with  the  First 
Cause  as  its  necessary  effect ;  but  we  believe  that  they  have  had  a  beginning, 
that  God  created  the  Intelligences,  and  gave  the  spheres  the  capacity  of 
seeking  to  become  like  them ;  that  in  creating  the  Intelligences  and  the 
spheres,  He  endowed  them  with  their  governing  powers.  In  this  point  we 
differ  from  him. 

In  the  course  of  this  treatise  we  shall  give  his  theory  as  well  as  the  theory 
of  Creatio  ex  nihilo  taught  in  Scripture. 

CHAPTER  VII 

We  have  already  explained  that  the  term  "  angel  "  is  a  horhonym,  and  is  used 
of  the  intellectual  beings,  the  spheres,  and  the  elements  ;  for  all  these  are 
engaged  in  performing  a  divine  command.  But  do  not  imagine  that  the 
Intelligences  and  the  spheres  are  like  other  forces  which  reside  in  bodies  and 
act  by  the  laws  of  nature  without  being  conscious  of  what  they  do.  The 
spheres  and  the  Intelligences  are  conscious  of  their  actions,  and  select  by 
their  own  free  will  the  objects  of  their  influence,  although  not  in  the  same 
manner  as  we  exercise  free  will  and  rule  over  other  things,  which  only 
concern  temporary  beings.  I  have  been  led  to  adopt  this  theory  by 
certain  passages  in  Scripture  ;  e.g.,  an  angel  says  to  Lot :  "  For  I  cannot 
do  anything,"  etc.  (Gen.  xix.  21)  ;  and  telling  him  to  deliver  himself,  the 
angel  says  :   "  Behold  I  have  accepted  thee  concerning  this  thing  "  (ver.  21). 


THE  SPHERES   AND   THE   INTELLIGENCES      163 

Again  :  "  Take  heed  before  him,  and  listen  to  his  voice,"  etc.  (Exod.  xxiii. 
21).  These  passages  show  that  angels  are  conscious  of  what  they  do,  and 
have  free  will  in  the  sphere  of  action  intrusted  to  them,  just  as  we  have  free 
will  within  our  province,  and  in  accordance  with  the  power  given  to  us 
with  our  very  existence.  The  difference  is  that  what  we  do  is  the  lowest 
stage  of  excellence,  and  that  our  influence  and  actions  are  preceded  by  non- 
action ;  whilst  the  Intelligences  and  the  spheres  always  perform  that  which 
is  good,  they  contain  nothing  except  what  is  good  and  perfect,  as  will  be  shown 
further  on,  and  they  have  continually  been  active  from  the  beginning. 

CHAPTER  VIII 

It  is  one  of  the  ancient  beliefs,  both  among  the  philosophers  and  other  people, 
that  the  motions  of  the  spheres  produced  mighty  and  fearful  sounds.  They 
observed  how  little  objects  produced  by  rapid  motion  a  loud,  shrilling,  and 
terrifying  noise,  and  concluded  that  this  must  to  a  far  higher  degree  be  the 
case  with  the  bodies  of  the  sun,  the  moon  and  the  stars,  considering  their 
greatness  and  their  velocity.  The  Pythagoreans  believed  that  the  sounds 
were  pleasant,  and,  though  loud,  had  the  same  proportions  to  each  other  as 
the  musical  notes.  They  also  explained  why  these  mighty  and  tremendous 
sounds  are  not  heard  by  us.  This  belief  is  also  widespread  in  our  nation. 
Thus  our  Sages  describe  the  greatness  of  the  sound  produced  by  the  sun  in 
the  daily  circuit  in  its  orbit.  The  same  description  could  be  given  of  all 
heavenly  bodies.  Aristotle,  however,  rejects  this,  and  holds  that  they  pro- 
duce no  sounds.  You  will  find  his  opinion  in  the  book  The  Heavens  and  the 
World  (De  Coelo).  You  must  not  find  it  strange  that  Aristotle  differs  here 
from  the  opinion  of  our  Sages.  The  theory  of  the  music  of  the  spheres  is 
connected  with  the  theory  of  the  motion  of  the  stars  in  a  fixed  sphere,  and 
our  Sages  have,  in  this  astronomical  question,  abandoned  their  own  theory  in 
favour  of  the  theory  of  others.  Thus,  it  is  distinctly  stated,  "  The  wise  men 
of  other  nations  have  defeated  the  wise  men  of  Israel."  It  is  quite  right  that 
our  Sages  have  abandoned  their  own  theory ;  for  speculative  matters  every 
one  treats  according  to  the  results  of  his  own  study,  and  every  one  accepts 
that  which  appears  to  him  established  by  proof. 

CHAPTER  IX 

We  have  stated  above  that  in  the  age  of  Aristotle  the  number  of  spheres  was 
not  accurately  known  ;  and  that  those  who  at  present  count  nine  spheres 
consider  a  sphere  containing  several  rotating  circles  as  one,  a  fact  well  known 
to  all  who  have  a  knowledge  of  astronomy.  We  need,  therefore,  not  reject 
the  opinion  of  those  who  assume  two  spheres  in  accordance  with  the  words  of 
Scripture  :  "  Behold  the  heaven  and  the  heaven  of  heavens  are  the  Lord's  " 
(Deut.  X.  14).  They  reckon  all  the  spheres  with  stars,  i.e.,  with  all  the 
circles  in  which  the  stars  move,  as  one  ;  the  all-encompassing  sphere  in  which 
there  are  no  stars,  is  regarded  by  them  as  the  second  ;  hence  they  maintain 
that  there  are  two  spheres. 

I  will  here  introduce  an  explanation  which  is  necessary  for  the  under- 
standing of  our  view  on  the  present  subject.     There  is  a  difference  among 


1 64  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ancient  astronomers  whether  the  spheres  of  Mercury  and  Venus  are  above 
or  below  the  sun,  because  no  proof  can  be  given  for  the  position  of  these  two 
spheres.  At  first  it  was  generally  assumed  that  they  were  above  the  sun- 
note  this  well  ;  later  on  Ptolemy  maintained  that  they  were  below  the  sun  ; 
because  he  believed  that  in  this  manner  the  whole  arrangement  of  the  spheres 
would  be  most  reasonable  ;  the  sun  would  be  in  the  middle,  having  three 
stars  below  and  three  above  itself.  More  recently  some  Andalusian  scholars 
concluded,  from  certain  principles  laid  down  by  Ptolemy,  that  Venus  and 
Mercury  were  above  the  sun.  Ibn  Aflah  of  Seville,  with  whose  son  I  was 
acquainted,  has  written  a  famous  book  on  the  subject ;  also  the  excellent 
philosopher  Abu-Bekr  ibn-Alzaig,  one  of  whose  pupils  was  my  fellow-student, 
has  treated  of  this  subject  and  offered  certain  proofs — which  we  have  copied 
— of  the  improbability  of  Venus  and  Mercury  being  above  the  sun.  The 
proofs  given  by  Abu-Bekr  show  only  the  improbability,  not  the  impossibility. 
In  short,  whether  it  be  so  or  not,  the  ancients  placed  Venus  and  Mercury 
above  the  sun,  and  had,  therefore,  the  following  five  spheres  :  that  of  the 
moon,  which  is  undoubtedly  the  nearest  to  us ;  that  of  the  sun,  which  is,  of 
course,  above  the  former ;  then  that  of  the  five  planets,  the  sphere  of  the 
fixed  stars,  and  the  outermost  sphere,  which  does  not  contain  any  star. 
Consequently  there  are  four  spheres  containing  figures,  i.e.,  stars,  which  were 
called  figures  by  the  ancients  in  their  well-known  works — viz.,  the  spheres 
of  the  fixed  stars,  of  the  five  planets,  of  the  sun,  and  of  the  moon  ;  above  these 
there  is  one  sphere  which  is  empty,  without  any  star.  This  number  is  for  me 
of  great  importance  in  respect  to  an  idea  which  none  of  the  philosophers 
clearly  stated,  though  I  was  led  to  it  by  various  utterances  of  the  philosophers 
and  of  our  Sages.     I  will  now  state  the  idea  and  expound  it. 

CHAPTER  X 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  philosophers,  when  they  discuss  in  their 
works  the  order  of  the  Universe,  assume  that  the  existing  order  of  things  in 
this  sublunary  world  of  transient  beings  depends  on  forces  which  emanate 
from  the  spheres.  We  have  mentioned  this  several  times.  In  like  manner 
our  Sages  say,  "  There  is  no  single  herb  below  without  its  corresponding  star 
above,  that  beats  upon  it  and  commands  it  to  grow."  Comp.  "  Knowcst 
thou  the  ordinances  of  heaven  ?  Canst  thou  set  the  dominion  thereof 
in  the  earth  ?  "  (Job  xxxviii.  33).  The  term  mazz.al,  literally  meaning 
a  constellation  in  the  Zodiac,  is  also  used  of  every  star,  as  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  following  passage  in  the  beginning  of  Bereshit  Rabba 
(chap.  X.)  :  "  While  one  star  (mazzal)  completes  its  circuit  in  thirty  days, 
another  completes  it  in  thirty  years."  They  have  thus  clearly  expressed 
it,  that  even  each  individual  being  in  this  world  has  its  corresponding 
star.  Although  the  influences  of  the  spheres  extend  over  all  beings,  there 
is  besides  the  influence  of  a  particular  star  directed  to  each  particular 
species  ;  a  fact  noticed  also  in  reference  to  the  several  forces  in  one  organic 
body;  for  the  whole  Universe  is  like  one  organic  body,  as  we  have  stated 
above.  Thus  the  philosophers  speak  of  the  peculiar  influence  of  the  moon 
on  the  particular  element  water.  That  this  is  the  case  is  proved  by  the 
increase  and  decrease  of  the  water  in  the  seas  and  rivers  according  to  the 


THE   SPHERES    AND    THE   INTELLIGENCES      165 

increase  and  decrease  of  the  moon  ;  also  by  the  rising  and  the  falling  of  the 
seas  according  to  the  advance  or  return  of  the  moon,  i.e.,  her  ascending  and 
her  descending  in  the  several  quarters  of  her  course.  This  is  clear  to  every  one 
who  has  directed  his  attention  to  these  phenomena.  The  influence  of  ilic 
sun's  rays  upon  fire  may  easily  be  noticed  in  the  increase  of  heat  or  cold  on 
earth,  according  as  the  sun  approaches  the  earth  or  recedes  or  is  concealed 
from  it.  All  this  is  so  clear  that  I  need  not  explain  it  further.  Now  it 
occurred  to  my  mind  that  the  four  spheres  which  contain  stars  exercise  in- 
fluence upon  all  beings  on  earth  that  come  into  existence,  and,  in  fact,  are 
the  cause  of  their  existence  ;  but  each  of  the  four  spheres  is  the  exclusive 
source  of  the  properties  of  one  only  of  the  four  elements,  and  becomes  by  its 
own  motion  the  cause  of  the  motion  and  changes  of  that  clement.  Thus 
water  is  set  in  motion  by  the  moon-sphere,  fire  by  the  sun-sphere,  air  by  the 
other  planets,  which  move  in  many  and  different  courses  with  retrogressions, 
progressions,  and  stations,  and  therefore  produce  the  various  forms  of  the 
air  with  its  frequent  changes,  contractions,  and  expansions ;  the  sphere  of 
the  other  stars,  namely,  the  fixed  stars,  sets  earth  in  motion  ;  and  it  may  be 
that  on  this  account,  viz.,  on  account  of  the  slow  motion  of  the  fixed  stars, 
earth  is  but  slowly  set  in  motion  to  change  and  to  combine  with  other  ele- 
ments. The  particular  influence  which  the  fixed  stars  exercise  upon  earth 
is  implied  in  the  saying  of  our  Sages,  that  the  number  of  the  species  of  plants 
is  the  same  as  that  of  the  individuals  included  in  the  general  term  "  stars." 

The  arrangement  of  the  Universe  may  therefore  be  assumed  to  be  as 
follows :  there  are  four  spheres,  four  elements  set  in  motion  by  them,  and 
also  four  principal  properties  which  earthly  beings  derive  from  them,  as  has 
been  stated  above.  Furthermore,  there  are  four  causes  of  the  motion  of 
every  sphere,  namely,  the  following  four  essential  elements  in  the  sphere  ; 
its  spherical  shape,  its  soul,  its  intellect,  by  which  the  sphere  is  capable  of 
forming  ideas,  and  the  Intelligence,  which  the  sphere  desires  to  imitate. 
Note  this  well.  The  explanation  of  what  I  said  is  this :  the  sphere  could  not 
have  been  continuously  in  motion,  had  it  not  this  peculiar  form  ;  continuity 
of  motion  is  only  possible  when  the  motion  is  circular.  Rectilinear  motion, 
even  if  frequently  repeated  in  the  same  moment,  cannot  be  continuous  ;  for 
when  a  body  moves  successively  in  two  opposite  directions,  it  must  pass 
through  a  moment  of  rest,  as  has  been  demonstrated  in  its  proper  place. 
The  necessity  of  a  continuous  motion  constantly  repeated  in  the  same  path 
implies  the  necessity  of  a  circular  form.  The  spheres  must  have  a  soul ;  for 
only  animate  beings  can  move  freely.  There  must  be  some  cause  for  the 
motion,  and  as  it  does  not  consist  in  the  fear  of  that  which  is  injurious,  or 
the  desire  of  that  which  is  profitable,  it  must  be  found  in  the  notion  which 
the  spheres  form  of  a  certain  being,  and  in  the  desire  to  approach  that  being. 
This  formation  of  a  notion  demands,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  spheres  pos- 
sess intellect ;  it  demands  further  that  something  exists  which  corresponds 
to  that  notion,  and  which  the  spheres  desire  to  approach.  These  arc  the 
four  causes  of  the  motion  of  the  spheres.  The  following  are  the  four  prin- 
cipal forces  directly  derived  from  the  spheres :  the  nature  of  minerals,  the 
properties  peculiar  to  plants,  the  animal  faculties,  and  the  intellect.  An 
examination  of  these  forces  shows  that  they  have  two  functions,  namely,  to 
produce  things  and  to  perpetuate  them  ;  that  is  to  say,  to  preserve  the  specie. 


i66  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

perpetually,  and  the  individuals  in  each  species  for  a  certain  time.  These 
are  also  the  functions  ascribed  to  Nature,  which  is  said  to  be  wise,  to  govern 
the  Universe,  to  provide,  as  it  were,  by  plan  for  the  production  of  living 
beings,  and  to  provide  also  for  their  preservation  and  perpetuation.  Nature 
creates  formative  faculties,  which  are  the  cause  of  the  production  of  living 
beings,  and  nutritive  faculties  as  the  source  of  their  temporal  existence  and 
preservation.  It  may  be  that  by  Nature  the  Divine  Will  is  meant,  which  is 
the  origin  of  these  two  kinds  of  faculties  through  the  medium  of  the  spheres. 

As  to  the  number  four,  it  is  strange,  and  demands  our  attention.  In 
Midrash  Tanhuma  the  following  passage  occurs  :  "  How  many  steps  were 
in  Jacob's  ladder  ? — Four."  The  question  refers  to  the  verse,  "  And  behold 
a  ladder  set  upon  the  earth,"  etc.  (Gen.  xxviii.  12).  In  all  the  Midrashim 
it  is  stated  that  there  were  four  hosts  of  angels ;  this  statement  is  frequently 
repeated.  Some  read  in  the  above  passage  :  "  How  many  steps  were  in  the 
ladder  ? — Seven."  But  all  readings  and  all  Midrashim  unanimously  express 
that  the  angels  whom  Jacob  saw  ascending  the  ladder,  and  descending,  were 
only  four  ;  two  of  whom  were  going  up  and  two  coming  down.  These  four 
angels,  the  two  that  went  up  and  the  two  that  came  down,  occupied  one 
step  of  the  ladder,  standing  in  one  line.  Hence  it  has  been  inferred  that  the 
breadth  of  the  ladder  in  this  vision  was  four-thirds  of  the  world.  For  the 
breadth  of  an  angel  in  a  prophetic  vision  is  equal  to  one-third  of  the  world  ; 
comp.  "  And  his  body  was  like  tarshish  (two-sixths)  "  (Dan.  x.  6)  ;  the  four 
angels  therefore  occupied  four-thirds  of  the  world. — Zechariah,  in  describing 
the  allegorical  vision  of  "  the  four  chariots  that  came  out  from  between  two 
mountain?,  which  mountains  were  mountains  of  brass  "  (Zech.  vi.  l),  adds 
the  explanation,  "  These  are  the  four  spirits  of  the  heavens  which  go  forth 
from  standing  before  the  Lord  of  aU  the  earth"  {ibid.  ver.  5).  By  these  four 
spirits  the  causes  are  meant  which  produce  all  changes  in  the  Universe.  The 
term  "  brass "  (nehoshet),  employed  here,  and  the  phrase  "  burnished 
brass  "  {nehoshet  kalat),  used  by  Ezekiel  (i.  7),  are  to  some  extent  homony- 
mous, and  wiU  be  discussed  further  on. 

The  saying  of  our  Sages,  that  the  angel  is  as  broad  as  the  third  part  of  the 
Universe,  or,  in  the  words  of  Bereshit  Rabba  (chap,  x.),  that  the  angel  is  the 
third  part  of  the  world,  is  quite  clear  ;  we  have  already  explained  it  in  our 
large  work  on  the  Holy  Law.  The  whole  creation  consists  of  three  parts,  (l) 
the  pure  intelligences,  or  angels ;  (2)  the  bodies  of  the  spheres ;  and  (3)  the 
materia  prima,  or  the  bodies  which  are  below  the  spheres,  and  are  subject  to 
constant  change. 

In  this  manner  may  those  understand  the  dark  sayings  of  the  prophets  who 
desire  to  understand  them,  who  awake  from  the  sleep  of  forgetfulness,  deliver 
themselves  from  the  sea  of  ignorance,  and  raise  themselves  upward  nearer  the 
higher  beings.  But  those  who  prefer  to  swim  in  the  waters  of  their  ignor- 
ance, and  to  "  go  down  very  low,"  need  not  exert  the  body  or  heart ;  they 
need  only  cease  to  move,  and  they  will  go  down  by  the  law  of  nature.  Note 
and  consider  well  all  we  have  said. 


CHAPTER  XI 
When  a  simple  mathematician  reads  and  studies  these  astronomical  discus 


THE   SPHERES   AND    THE   INTELLIGENCES      167 

sions,  he  believes  that  the  form  and  the  number  of  the  spheres  are  facts 
established  by  proof.  But  this  is  not  the  case  ;  for  the  science  of  astronomy 
does  not  aim  at  demonstrating  them,  although  it  includes  subjects  that  can 
be  proved  ;  e.g.,  it  has  been  proved  that  the  path  of  the  sun  is  inclined 
against  the  equator  ;  this  cannot  be  doubted.  But  it  has  not  yet  been 
decided  whether  the  sphere  of  the  sun  is  exccntric  or  contains  a  revolving 
epicycle,  and  the  astronomer  does  not  take  notice  of  this  uncertainty,  for  his 
object  is  simply  to  find  an  hypothesis  that  would  lead  to  a  uniform  and  cir- 
cular motion  of  the  stars  without  acceleration,  retardation,  or  change,  and 
which  is  in  its  effects  in  accordance  with  observation.  He  will,  besides,  en- 
deavour to  find  such  an  hypothesis  which  would  require  the  least  complicated 
motion  and  the  least  number  of  spheres  ;  he  will  therefore  prefer  an  hypo- 
thesis which  would  explain  all  the  phenomena  of  the  stars  by  means  of  three 
spheres  to  an  hypothesis  which  would  require  four  spheres.  From  this  reason 
we  adopt,  in  reference  to  the  circuit  of  the  sun,  the  theory  of  exccntricity, 
and  reject  the  epicyclic  revolution  assumed  by  Ptolemy.  When  we  there- 
fore perceive  that  all  fixed  stars  move  in  the  same  way  uniformly,  without 
the  least  difference,  we  conclude  that  they  are  all  in  one  sphere.  It  is,  how- 
ever, not  impossible  that  the  stars  should  have  each  its  own  sphere,  with  a 
separate  centre,  and  yet  move  in  the  same  way.  If  this  theory  be  accepted, 
a  number  of  Intelligences  must  be  assumed,  equal  to  that  of  the  stars,  and 
therefore  Scripture  says  in  reference  to  them,  "  Is  there  any  number  of  his 
armies  ?  "  (Job  xxv.  3)  ;  for  the  Intelligences,  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the 
natural  forces,  are  called  the  armies  of  God.  Nevertheless  the  species  of  the 
stars  can  be  numbered,  and  therefore  we  would  still  be  justified  in  counting 
the  spheres  of  the  fixed  stars  collectively  as  one,  just  as  the  five  spheres  of  the 
planets,  together  with  the  numerous  spheres  they  contain,  are  regarded  by 
us  as  one.  Our  object  in  adopting  this  number  is,  as  you  have  noticed,  to 
divide  the  influences  which  we  can  trace  in  the  Universe  according  to  their 
general  character,  without  desiring  to  fix  the  number  of  the  Intelligences 
and  the  spheres.  All  we  wish  to  point  out  is  this  :  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
whole  Creation  is  divided  into  three  parts,  viz.  (l)  the  pure  Intelligences; 
(2)  the  bodies  of  the  spheres  endowed  with  permanent  forms — (the  forms 
of  these  bodies  do  not  pass  from  one  substratum  to  another,  nor  do  their 
substrata  undergo  any  change  whatever)  ;  and  (3)  the  transient  earthly 
beings,  all  of  which  consist  of  the  same  substance.  Furthermore,  we  desire 
to  show  that  the  ruling  power  emanates  from  the  Creator,  and  is  received  by 
the  Intelligences  according  to  their  order ;  from  the  Intelligences  part  of 
the  good  and  the  light  bestowed  upon  them  is  communicated  to  the  spheres, 
and  the  latter,  being  in  possession  of  the  abundance  obtained  of  the  Intelli- 
gences, transmit  forces  and  properties  unto  the  beings  of  this  transient  world. 
We  must,  however,  add  that  the  part  which  benefits  the  part  below  it  in 
the  order  described  does  not  exist  for  the  sole  purpose  of  producing  that 
benefit.  For  if  this  were  the  case  it  would  lead  to  the  paradox  that  the  higher, 
better,  and  nobler  beings  existed  for  the  sake  of  beings  lower  in  rank,  whilst 
in  reality  the  object  should  be  of  greater  importance  than  the  means  applied 
for  attaining  it.  No  intelligent  person  will  admit  that  this  is  possible.  The 
nature  of  the  influence  which  one  part  of  the  Creation  exercises  upon  another 
must  be  explained  as  follows :  A  thing  perfect  in  a  certain  way  is  cither  per- 


i68  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

feet  only  in  itself,  without  being  able  to  communicate  that  perfection  to 
another  being,  or  it  is  so  perfect  that  it  is  capable  of  imparting  perfection  to 
another  being.  A  person  mav  possess  wealth  sufficient  for  his  own  wants 
without  being  able  to  spare  anything  for  another,  or  he  may  have  wealth 
enough  to  benefit  also  other  people,  or  even  to  enrich  them  to  such  an  extent 
as  would  enable  them  to  give  part  of  their  property  to  others.  In  the  same 
manner  the  creative  act  of  the  Almighty  in  giving  existence  to  pure  Intelli- 
gences endows  the  first  of  them  with  the  power  of  giving  existence  to  another, 
and  so  on,  down  to  the  Active  Intellect,  the  lowest  of  the  purely  spiritual 
beings.  Besides  producing  other  Intelligences,  each  Intelligence  gives 
existence  to  one  of  the  spheres,  from  the  highest  down  to  the  lowest,  which 
is  the  sphere  of  the  moon.  After  the  latter  follows  this  transient  world,  i.e., 
the  materia  prima,  and  all  that  has  been  formed  of  it.  In  this  manner  the 
elements  receive  certain  properties  from  each  sphere,  and  a  succession  of 
genesis  and  destruction  is  produced. 

We  have  already  mentioned  that  these  theories  are  not  opposed  to  any- 
thing taught  by  our  Prophets  or  by  our  Sages.  Our  nation  is  vsase  and  per- 
fect, as  has  been  declared  by  the  Most  High,  through  Moses,  who  made  us 
perfect :  "  Surely  this  great  nation  is  a  wise  and  understanding  people  " 
(Deut.  iv.  6).  But  when  wicked  barbarians  have  deprived  us  of  our  posses- 
sions, put  an  end  to  our  science  and  literature,  and  killed  our  wise  men,  we 
have  become  ignorant ;  this  has  been  foretold  by  the  prophets,  when  they 
pronounced  the  punishment  for  our  sins  :  "  The  wisdom  of  their  wise  men 
shall  perish,  and  the  understanding  of  their  prudent  men  shall  be  hid  "  (Isa. 
xxix.  14).  We  are  mixed  up  with  other  nations ;  we  have  learnt  their 
opinions,  and  followed  their  ways  and  acts.  The  Psalmist,  deploring  this 
imitation  of  the  actions  of  other  nations,  says,  "  They  were  mingled  among 
the  nations,  and  learned  their  works  "  (Ps.  cvi.  35).  Isaiah  likewise  complains 
that  the  Israelites  adopted  the  opinions  of  their  neighbours,  and  says,  "  And 
they  please  themselves  in  the  children  of  strangers  "  (Isa.  ii.  6)  ;  or,  according 
to  the  Aramaic  version  of  Jonathan,  son  of  Uzziel,  "  And  they  walk  in  the 
ways  of  the  nations."  Having  been  brought  up  among  persons  untrained 
in  philosophy,  we  are  inclined  to  consider  these  philosophical  opinions  as 
foreign  to  our  religion,  just  as  uneducated  persons  find  them  foreign  to  their 
own  notions.     But,  in  fact,  it  is  not  so. 

Since  we  have  repeatedly  spoken  of  the  influence  emanating  from  God  and 
the  Intelligences,  we  will  now  proceed  to  explain  what  is  the  true  meaning 
of  this  influence,  and  after  that  I  will  discuss  the  theory  of  the  Creation. 

CHAPTER  XII 

It  is  clear  that  whenever  a  thing  is  produced,  an  efficient  cause  must  exist 
for  the  production  of  the  thing  that  has  not  existed  previously.  This  imme- 
diate efficient  cause  is  either  corporeal  or  incorporeal  ;  if  corporeal,  it  is  not 
the  efficient  cause  on  account  of  its  corporeality,  but  on  account  of  its  being 
an  individual  corporeal  object,  and  therefore  by  means  of  its  form.  I  will 
speak  of  this  subject  later  on.  The  immediate  efficient  cause  of  a  thing  may 
again  be  the  effect  of  some  cause,  and  so  on,  but  not  ad  infinitum.  The  series 
of  causes  for  a  certain  product  must  necessarily  conclude  with  a  First  Cause,, 


EMANATION  i6o 

which  is  the  true  cause  of  that  product,  and  whose  existence  is  not  due  to 
another  cause.  The  question  remains,  Why  has  this  thinj,'  been  produced 
now  and  not  long  before,  since  the  cause  has  always  been  in  existence  ?  The 
answer  is,  that  a  certain  relation  between  cause  and  product  has  been  absent, 
if  the  cause  be  corporeal ;  or,  that  the  substance  has  not  been  sufficiently 
prepared,  if  the  cause  be  incorporeal.  All  this  is  in  accordance  with  the 
teachings  of  natural  science.  We  ignore  for  the  present  the  question  whether 
to  assume  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  or  the  Crentio  ex  nihilo.  We  do  not 
intend  to  discuss  the  question  here. 

In  Physics  it  has  been  shown  that  a  body  in  acting  upon  another  body 
must  either  directly  be  in  contact  with  it,  or  indirectly  through  the  medium 
of  other  bodies.  E.g.,  a  body  that  has  been  heated  has  been  in  contact  with 
fire,  or  the  air  that  surrounds  the  body  has  been  heated  by  the  fire,  and  has 
communicated  the  heat  to  the  body  ;  the  immediate  cause  of  the  heat  in  this 
body  is  the  corporeal  substance  of  the  heated  air.  The  magnet  attracts 
iron  from  a  distance  through  a  certain  force  communicated  to  the  air  round 
the  iron.  The  magnet  does  therefore  not  act  at  all  distances,  just  as  fire  does 
not  act  at  every  distance,  but  only  as  long  as  the  air  between  the  fire  and  the 
object  is  affected  by  the  fire.  When  the  air  is  no  longer  affected  by  the  fire 
which  is  under  a  piece  of  wax,  the  latter  does  not  melt.  The  same  is  the  case 
with  magnetism.  When  an  object  that  has  previously  not  been  warm  has 
now  become  warm,  the  cause  of  its  heat  must  now  have  been  created  ;  either 
some  fire  has  been  produced,  or  the  distance  of  the  fire  from  the  object  has 
been  changed,  and  the  altered  relation  between  the  fire  and  the  object  is  the 
cause  now  created.  In  a  similar  manner  we  find  the  causes  of  all  changes 
in  the  Universe  to  be  changes  in  the  combination  of  the  elements  that  act 
upon  each  other  when  one  body  approaches  another  or  separates  from  it. 
There  are,  however,  changes  which  are  not  connected  with  the  combination 
of  the  elements,  but  concern  only  the  forms  of  the  things ;  they  require  like- 
wise an  efficient  cause  ;  there  must  exist  a  force  that  produces  the  various 
forms.  This  cause  is  incorporeal,  for  that  which  produces  form  must  itself 
be  abstract  form,  as  has  been  shown  in  its  proper  place.  I  have  also  indicated 
the  proof  of  this  theorem  in  previous  chapters.  The  following  may,  in 
addition,  serve  to  illustrate  it :  All  combinations  of  the  elements  are  subject 
to  increase  and  decrease,  and  this  change  takes  place  gradually.  It  is  different 
with  forms ;  they  do  not  change  gradually,  and  are  therefore  without  motion  ; 
they  appear  and  disappear  instantaneously,  and  are  consequently  not  the 
result  of  the  combination  of  corporeal  elements.  This  combination  merely 
prepares  matter  for  receiving  a  certain  form.  The  efficient  cause  which 
produces  the  form  is  indivisible,  because  it  is  of  the  same  kind  as  the  thing 
produced.  Hence  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  agent  that  has  produced 
a  certain  form,  or  given  it  to  a  certain  substance,  must  itself  be  an  abstract 
form.  The  action  of  this  incorporeal  agent  cannot  depend  on  a  certain 
relation  to  the  corporeal  product ;  being  incorporeal,  it  cannot  approach  a 
body,  or  recede  from  it ;  nor  can  a  body  approach  the  incorporeal  agent,  or 
recede  from  it,  because  there  is  no  relation  of  distance  between  corporeal  and 
incorporeal  beings.  The  reason  why  the  action  has  not  taken  place  before 
must  be  souglit  in  the  circumstance  tiiat  the  substance  has  not  been  prepared 
for  the  action  of  the  abstract  form. 


1 70  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

It  is  now  clear  that  the  action  of  bodies  upon  each  other,  according  to 
their  forms,  prepares  the  substance  for  receiving  the  action  of  an  incorporeal 
being,  or  Form.  The  existence  of  actions  of  purely  incorporeal  beings,  in 
every  case  of  change  that  does  not  originate  in  the  mere  combination  of 
elements,  is  now  firmly  established.  These  actions  do  not  depend  on  im- 
pact, or  on  a  certain  distance.  They  are  termed  "  influence  "  (or  "  emana- 
tion "),  on  account  of  their  similarity  to  a  water-spring.  The  latter  sends 
forth  water  in  all  directions,  has  no  peculiar  side  for  receiving  or  spending 
its  contents ;  it  springs  forth  on  all  sides,  and  continually  waters  both  neigh- 
bouring and  distant  places.  In  a  similar  manner  incorporeal  beings,  in 
receiving  power  and  imparting  it  to  others,  are  not  limited  to  a  particular 
side,  distance,  or  time.  They  act  continually  ;  and  whenever  an  object  is 
sufficiently  prepared,  it  receives  the  effect  of  that  continuous  action,  called 
"  influence  "  (or  "  emanation  ").  God  being  incorporeal,  and  everything 
being  the  work  of  Him  as  the  efficient  cause,  we  say  that  the  Universe  has 
been  created  by  the  Divine  influence,  and  that  all  changes  in  the  Universe 
emanate  from  Him.-  In  the  same  sense  we  say  that  He  caused  wisdom  to 
emanate  from  Him  and  to  come  upon  the  prophets.  In  all  such  cases  we 
merely  wish  to  express  that  an  incorporeal  Being,  whose  action  we  call 
"  influence,"  has  produced  a  certain  effect.  The  term  "  influence  "  has 
been  considered  applicable  to  the  Creator  on  account  of  the  similarity  be- 
tween His  actions  and  those  of  a  spring.  There  is  no  better  way  of  describing 
the  action  of  an  incorporeal  being  than  by  this  analogy  ;  and  no  term  can  be 
found  that  would  accurately  describe  it.  For  it  is  as  difficult  to  form  an 
idea  of  that  action  as  to  form  an  idea  of  the  incorporeal  being  itself.  As  we 
imagine  only  bodies  or  forces  residing  in  bodies,  so  we  only  imagine  actions 
possible  when  the  agent  is  near,  at  a  certain  distance,  and  on  a  particular  side. 
There  are  therefore  persons  who,  on  learning  that  God  is  incorporeal,  or  that 
He  does  not  approach  the  object  of  His  action,  believe  that  He  gives  com- 
mands to  angels,  and  that  the  latter  carry  them  out  by  approach  or  direct 
contact,  as  is  the  case  when  we  produce  something.  These  persons  thus 
imagine  also  the  angels  as  bodies.  Some  of  them,  further,  believe  that  God 
commands  an  action  in  words  consisting,  like  ours,  of  letters  and  sound,  and 
that  thereby  the  action  is  done.  All  this  is  the  work  of  the  imagination, 
which  is,  in  fact,  identical  with  "  evil  inclination."  For  all  our  defects  in 
speech  or  in  character  are  either  the  direct  or  the  indirect  work  of  imagina- 
tion. This  is  not  the  subject  of  the  present  chapter,  in  which  we  only  in- 
tended to  explain  the  term  "  influence  "  in  so  far  as  it  is  applied  to  incor- 
poreal beings,  namely,  to  God  and  to  the  Intelligences  or  angels.  But  the 
term  is  also  applied  to  the  forces  of  the  spheres  in  their  effects  upon  the 
earth  ;  and  we  speak  of  the  "  influence  "  of  the  spheres,  although  the  spheres 
are  corporeal,  and  the  stars,  being  corporeal,  only  act  at  certain  distances, 
i.e.,  at  a  smaller  or  a  greater  distance  from  the  centre,  or  at  a  definite  distance 
from  each  other,  a  circumstance  which  led  to  Astrology. 

As  to  our  assertion  that  Scripture  applies  the  notion  of  "  influence  "  to 
God,  compare  "  They  have  forsaken  me,  the  fountain  of  living  waters  " 
(Jer.  ii.  13),  i.e.,  the  Divine  influence  that  gives  life  or  existence,  for  the  two 
are  undoubtedly  identical.  Further,  "  For  with  Thee  is  the  fountain  of 
life  "  (Ps.  xxxvi.  10),  i.e.,  the  Divine  influence  that  gives  existence.     The 


CREATION— ETERNITY  OF   THE    UNIVERSE       171 

concluding  words  of  this  verse,  "  in  Thy  light  wc  see  lit^ht,"  express  exactly 
what  wc  said,  namely,  that  by  the  influence  of  the  intellect  which  emanates 
from  God  we  become  wise,  by  it  wc  are  guided  and  enabled  to  comprehend 
the  Active  Intellect.     Note  this. 

CHAPTER  XIII 

Among  those  who  believe  in  the  existence  of  God,  there  are  found  three 
different  theories  as  regards  the  question  whether  the  Universe  is  eternal 
or  not. 

^Ftrst  Theory. — Those  who  follow  the  Law  of  Moses,  our  Teacher,  hold 
that  the  whole  Universe,  i.e.,  everything  except  God,  has  been  brought  by 
Him  into  existence  out  of  non-existence.  In  the  beginning  God  alone  ex- 
isted, and  nothing  else  ;  neither  angels,  nor  spheres,  nor  the  things  that  are 
contained  within  the  spheres  existed.  He  then  produced  from  nothing  all 
existing  things  such  as  they  are,  by  His  will  and  desire.  Even  time  itself  is 
among  the  things  created  ;  for  time  depends  on  motion,  i.e.,  on  an  accident 
in  things  which  move,  and  the  things  upon  whose  motion  time  depends  are 
themselves  created  beings,  which  have  passed  from  non-existence  into  exist- 
ence. We  say  that  God  existed  before  the  creation  of  the  Universe,  although 
the  verb  existed  appears  to  imply  the  notion  of  time  ;  we  also  believe  that 
He  existed  an  infinite  space  of  time  before  the  Universe  was  created ;  but 
in  these  cases  we  do  not  mean  time  in  its  true  sense.  We  only  use  the  term 
to  signify  something  analogous  or  similar  to  time.  For  time  is  undoubtedly 
an  accident,  and,  according  to  our  opinion,  one  of  the  created  accidents,  like 
blackness  and  whiteness ;  it  is  not  a  quality,  but  an  accident  connected  with 
motion.  This  must  be  clear  to  all  who  understand  what  Aristotle  has  said 
on  time  and  its  real  existence. 

The  followang  remark  does  not  form  ^ an  essential  part  of  our  present 
research  ;  it  will  nevertheless  be  found  useful  in  the  course  of  this  discussion. 
Many  scholars  do  not  know  what  time  really  is,  and  men  like  Galen  were  so 
perplexed  about  it  that  they  asked  whether  time  has  a  real  existence  or  not ; 
the  reason  for  this  uncertainty  is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstance  that  time  is 
an  accident  of  an  accident.  Accidents  which  are  directly  connected  with 
material  bodies,  e.g.,  colour  and  taste,  are  easily  understood,  and  correct 
notions  are  formed  of  them.  There  are.  however,  accidents  which  are  con- 
nected with  other  accidents,  e.g.,  the  splendour  of  colour,  or  the  inclination 
and  the  curvature  of  a  line ;  of  these  it  is  very  difficult  to  form  a  correct 
notion,  especially  when  the  accident  which  forms  the  substratum  for  the 
other  accident  is  not  constant  but  variable.  Both  difficulties  are  present  in 
the  notion  of  time  :  it  is  an  accident  of  motion,  which  is  itself  an  accident 
of  a  moving  object ;  besides,  it  is  not  a  fixed  property  ;  on  the  contrary,  its 
true  and  essential  condition  is,  not  to  remain  in  the  same  state  for  two  con- 
secutive moments.  This  is  the  source  of  ignorance  about  the  nature  of 
time. 

We  consider  time  a  thing  created  ;  it  comes  into  existence  in  the  same 
manner  as  other  accidents,  and  the  substances  which  form  the  substratum 
for  the  accidents.  For  this  reason,  viz.,  because  time  belongs  to  the  things 
created,  it  cannot  be  said  that  God  produced  the  Universe  in  the  beginning. 


172  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Consider  this  well ;  for  he  who  does  not  understand  it  is  unable  to  refute 
forcible  objections  raised  against  the  theory  of  Creatio  ex  nihilo.  If  you 
admit  the  existence  of  time  before  the  Creation,  you  will  be  compelled  to 
accept  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  For  time  is  an  accident 
and  requires  a  substratum.  You  will  therefore  have  to  assume  that  some- 
thing [beside  God]  existed  before  this  Universe  was  created,  an  assumption 
which  it  is  our  duty  to  oppose. 

This  is  the  first  theory,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  a  fundamental  principle  of 
the  Law  of  our  teacher  Moses ;  it  is  next  in  importance  to  the  principle  of 
God's  unity.  Do  not  follow  any  other  theory.  Abraham,  our  father,  was 
the  first  that  taught  it,  after  he  had  established  it  by  philosophical  research. 
He  proclaimed,  therefore,  "  the  name  of  the  Lord  the  God  of  the  Universe  " 
(Gen.  xxi.  33)  ;  and  he  had  previously  expressed  this  theory  in  the  words, 
"  The  Possessor  of  heaven  and  earth  "  {ibid,  xiv,  22). 

Second  Theory. — The  theory  of  all  philosophers  whose  opinions  and  works 
are  known  to  us  is  this :  It  is  impossible  to  assume  that  God  produced  any- 
thing from  nothing,  or  that  He  reduces  anything  to  nothing  :  that  is  to  say, 
it  is  impossible  that  an  object  consisting  of  matter  and  form  should  be  pro- 
duced when  that  matter  is  absolutely  absent,  or  that  it  should  be  destroyed 
in  such  a  manner  that  that  matter  be  absolutely  no  longer  in  existence. 
To  say  of  God  that  He  can  produce  a  thing  from  nothing  or  reduce  a  thing 
to  nothing  is,  according  to  the  opinion  of  these  philosophers,  the  same  as  if 
we  were  to  say  that  He  could  cause  one  substance  to  have  at  the  same  time 
two  opposite  properties,  or  produce  another  being  like  Himself,  or  change 
Himself  into  a  body,  or  produce  a  square  the  diagonal  of  which  be  equal  to 
its  side,  or  similar  impossibilities.  The  philosophers  thus  believe  that  it  is 
no  defect  in  the  Supreme  Being  that  He  does  not  produce  impossibilities,  for 
the  nature  of  that  which  is  impossible  is  constant — it  does  not  depend  on  the 
action  of  an  agent,  and  for  this  reason  it  cannot  be  changed.  Similarly  there 
is,  according  to  them,  no  defect  in  the  greatness  of  God,  when  He  is  unable 
to  produce  a  thing  from  nothing,  because  they  consider  this  as  one  of  the 
impossibilities.  They  therefore  assume  that  a  certain  substance  has  co- 
existed with  God  from  eternity  in  such  a  manner  that  neither  God  existed 
without  that  substance  nor  the  latter  without  God.  But  they  do  not  hold 
that  the  existence  of  that  substance  equals  in  rank  that  of  God  ;  for  God  is 
the  cause  of  that  existence,  and  the  substance  is  in  the  same  relation  to  God 
as  the  clay  is  to  the  potter,  or  the  iron  to  the  smith  ;  God  can  do  with  it  what 
He  pleases ;  at  one  time  He  forms  of  it  heaven  and  earth,  at  another  time 
He  forms  some  other  thing.  Those  who  hold  this  view  also  assume  that  the 
heavens  are  transient,  that  they  came  into  existence,  though  not  from  no- 
thing, and  may  cease  to  exist,  although  they  cannot  be  reduced  to  nothing. 
They  are  transient  in  the  same  manner  as  the  individuals  among  living  beings 
which  are  produced  from  some  existing  substance,  and  are  again  reduced  to 
some  substance  that  remains  in  existence.  The  process  of  genesis  and  de- 
struction is,  in  the  case  of  the  heavens,  the  same  as  in  that  of  earthly 
beings. 

The  followers  of  this  theory  are  divided  into  different  schools,  whose 
opinions  and  principles  it  is  useless  to  discuss  here  ;  but  what  I  have  mentioned 
i^  common  to  all  of  them.     Plato  holds  the  same  opinion.     Aristotle  says  in 


CREATION— ETERNITY    OF   THE    UNIVERSE      173 

his  Physics,  that  according  to  Plato  the  heavens  arc  transient.  This  view 
is  also  stated  in  Plato's  Timceus.  His  opinion, 'however,  does  not  agree 
with  our  belief ;  only  superficial  and  careless  persons  wrongly  assume  that 
Plato  has  the  same  belief  as  we  have.  For  whilst  we  hold  that  the  heavens 
have  been  created  from  absolutely  nothing,  Plato  believes  that  tliey  have 
been  formed  out  of  something. — This  is  the  second  theory. 

7hird  Theory. — viz.,  that  of  Aristotle,  his  followers,  and  commentators. 
Aristotle  maintains,  like  the  adherents  of  the  second  theory,  that  a  corporeal 
object  cannot  be  produced  without  a  corporeal  substance.  He  goes,  how- 
ever, farther,  and  contends  that  the  heavens  are  indestructible.  For  he 
holds  that  the  Universe  in  its  totality  has  never  been  different,  nor  will  it 
ever  change  :  the  heavens,  which  form  the  permanent  element  in  the  Uni- 
verse, and  are  not  subject  to  genesis  and  destruction,  have  always  been  so ; 
time  and  motion  are  eternal,  permanent,  and  have  neither  beginning  nor 
end  ;  the  sublunary  world,  which  includes  the  transient  elements,  has  always 
been  the  same,  because  the  materia  prima  is  itself  eternal,  and  merely  com- 
bines successively  with  different  forms ;  when  one  form  is  removed,  another 
is  assumed.  This  whole  arrangement,  therefore,  both  above  and  here  below, 
is  never  disturbed  or  interrupted,  and  nothing  is  produced  contrary  to  the 
laws  or  the  ordinary  course  of  Nature.  He  further  says — though  not  in  the 
same  terms — that  he  considers  it  impossible  for  God  to  change  His  will  or 
conceive  a  new  desire  ;  that  God  produced  this  Universe  in  its  totality  by 
His  will,  but  not  from  nothing.  Aristotle  finds  it  as  impossible  to  assurne  that 
God  changes  His  will  or  conceives  a  new  desire,  as  to  believe  that  He  is  non- 
existing,  or  that  His  essence  is  changeable.  Hence  it  follows  that  this 
Universe  has  always  been  the  same  in  the  past,  and  will  be  the  same 
eternally. 

This  is  a  full  account  of  the  opinions  of  those  who  consider  that  the  exist- 
ence of  God,  the  First  Cause  of  the  Universe,  has  been  established  by  proof. 
But  it  would  be  quite  useless  to  mention  the  opinions  of  those  who  do  not 
recognize  the  existence  of  God,  but  believe  that  the  existing  state  of  things 
is  the  result  of  accidental  combination  and  separation  of  the  elements,  and 
that  the  Universe  has  no  Ruler  or  Governor.  Such  is  the  theory  of  Epicurus 
and  his  school,  and  similar  philosophers,  as  stated  by  Alexander  [Aphrodi- 
siensis]  ;  it  would  be  superfluous  to  repeat  their  views,  since  the  existence 
of  God  has  been  demonstrated  whilst  their  theory  is  built  upon  a  basis  proved 
to  be  untenable.  It  is  likewise  useless  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the 
followers  of  the  second  theory  in  asserting  that  the  heavens  are  transient 
because  thev  at  the  same  time  believe  in  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  and 
so  long  as  this  theory  is  adopted,  it  makes  no  difference  to  us  whether  it  is 
believed  that  the  heavens  are  transient,  and  that  only  their  substance  is 
eternal,  or  the  heavens  are  held  to  be  indestructible,  in  accordance  with  the 
view  of  Aristotle.  All  who  follow  the  Law  of  Moses,  our  Teacher,  and 
Abraham,  our  Father,  and  all  who  adopt  similar  theories,  assume  that  nothing 
is  eternal  except  God,  and  that  the  theory  of  Creatio  ex  mkilo  includes  no- 
thing that  is  impossible,  whilst  some  thinkers  even  regard  it  as  an  established 

'  After  having  described  the  different  theories,  I  will  now  proceed  to  show 
how  Aristotle  proved  his  theory,  .nuJ  v.i.at  induced  lum  to  adopt  it. 


174  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  XIV 

It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  in  every  chapter  that  I  write  this  treatise  with 
the  full  knowledge  of  what  you  have  studied  ;  that  I  therefore  need  not  quote 
the  exact  words  of  the  philosophers ;  it  will  suffice  to  give  an  abstract  of 
their  viewrs.  I  will,  however,  point  out  the  methods  which  they  employ, 
in  the  same  manner  as  I  have  done  when  I  discussed  the  theories  of  the 
Mutakallemim.  No  notice  will  be  taken  of  the  opinion  of  any  philosopher 
but  that  of  Aristotle  ;  his  opinions  alone  deserve  to  be  criticized,  and  if  our 
objections  or  doubts  with  regard  to  any  of  these  be  well  founded,  this  must 
be  the  case  in  a  far  higher  degree  in  respect  to  all  other  opponents  of  our 
fundamental  principles. 

I  now  proceed  to  describe  the  methods  of  the  philosophers. 
First  Method. — According  to  Aristotle,  motion,  that  is  to  say,  motion  par 
excellence,  is  eternal.  For  if  the  motion  had  a  beginning,  there  must  already 
have  been  some  motion  when  it  came  into  existence,  for  transition  from 
potentiality  into  actuality,  and  from  non-existence  into  existence,  always 
implies  motion  ;  then  that  previous  motion,  the  cause  of  the  motion  which 
follows,  must  be  eternal,  or  else  the  series  would  have  to  be  carried  back  ad 
infinitum.  On  the  same  principle  he  maintains  that  time  is  eternal,  for  time 
is  related  to  and  connected  with  motion  :  there  is  no  motion  except  in  time, 
and  time  can  only  be  perceived  by  motion,  as  has  been  demonstrated  by 
proof.     By  this  argument  Aristotle  proves  the  eternity  of  the  Universe. 

Second  Method. — The  First  Substance  common  to  the  four  elements  is 
eternal.  For  if  it  had  a  beginning  it  would  have  come  into  existence  from 
another  substance  ;  it  would  further  be  endowed  with  a  form,  as  coming 
into  existence  is  nothing  but  receiving  Form.  But  we  mean  by  "  First  Sub- 
stance "  a  formless  substance ;  it  can  therefore  not  have  come  into  exist- 
ence from  another  substance,  and  must  be  without  beginning  and  without 
end  ;  hence  it  is  concluded  that  the  Universe  is  eternal. 

Third  Method. — The  substance  of  the  spheres  contains  no  opposite  ele- 
ments ;  for  circular  motion  includes  no  such  opposite  directions  as  are  found 
in  rectilinear  motion.  Whatever  is  destroyed,  owes  its  destruction  to  the 
opposite  elements  it  contains.  The  spheres  contain  no  opposite  elements  ; 
they  are  therefore  indestructible,  and  because  they  are  indestructible  they 
are  also  without  beginning.  Aristotle  thus  assumes  the  axiom  that  every- 
thing that  has  had  a  beginning  is  destructible,  and  that  everything  destruc- 
tible has  had  a  beginning  ;  that  things  without  beginning  are  indestructible, 
and  indestructible  things  are  without  beginning.  Hence  follows  the  Eter- 
nity of  the  Universe. 

Fourth  Method. — The  actual  production  of  a  thing  is  preceded  in  time  by 
its  possibility.  The  actual  change  of  a  thing  is  likewise  preceded  in  time  by 
its  possibility.  From  this  proposition  Aristotle  derives  the  eternity  of  the 
circular  motion  of  the  spheres.  The  Aristotelians  in  more  recent  time 
employ  this  proposition  in  demonstrating  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe. 
They  argue  thus  :  When  the  Universe  did  not  yet  exist,  its  existence  was 
either  possible  or  necessary,  or  impossible.  If  it  was  necessary,  the  Universe 
could  never  have  been  non-existing  ;  if  impossible,  the  Universe  could  never 
have  been  in  existence ;   if  possible,  the  question  arises,  What  was  the  sub- 


CREATION-ETERNITY    OF    THE    UNIVERSE       175 

stratum  of  that  possibility  ?  for  there  must  be  in  existence  something  of 
which  that  possibility  can  be  predicated.  This  is  a  forcible  argument  in 
favour  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  Some  of  the  later  schools  of  the 
Mutakallemim  imagined  that  they  could  confute  this  argument  by  objecting 
that  the  possibility  rests  with  the  agent,  and  not  with  the  production.  But 
this  objection  is  of  no  force  whatever  ;  for  there  are  two  distinct  possibilities, 
viz.,  the  thing  produced  has  had  the  possibility  of  being  produced  before  this 
actually  took  place  ;  and  the  agent  has  had  the  possibility  of  producing  it 
before  he  actually  did  so.  There  are,  therefore,  undoubtedly  two  possi- 
bilities— that  of  the  substance  to  receive  a  certain  form,  and  that  of  the  agent 
to  perform  a  certain  act. 

These  are  the  principal  methods,  based  on  the  properties  of  the  Universe, 
by  which  Aristotle  proves  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  There  are,  however, 
other  methods  of  proving  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  They  are  based  on 
the  notions  formed  of  God,  and  philosophers  after  Aristotle  derived  them 
from  his  philosophy.     Some  of  them  employed  the  following  argument : — 

Fifth  Method. — If  God  produced  the  Universe  from  nothing,  He  must 
have  been  a  potential  agent  before  He  was  an  actual  one,  and  must  have 
passed  from  a  state  of  potentiality  into  that  of  actuality — a  process  that  is 
merely  possible,  and  requires  an  agent  for  effecting  it.  This  argument  is 
likewise  a  source  of  great  doubts,  and  every  intelligent  person  must  examine 
it  in  order  to  refute  it  and  to  expose  its  character. 

Sixth  Method. — An  agent  is  active  at  one  time  and  inactive  at  another, 
according  as  favourable  or  unfavourable  circumstances  arise.  The  unfavour- 
able circumstances  cause  the  abandonment  of  an  intended  action.  The 
favourable  ones,  on  the  other  hand,  even  produce  a  desire  for  an  action  for 
which  there  has  not  been  a  desire  previously.  As,  however,  God  is  not  sub- 
ject to  accidents  which  could  bring  about  a  change  in  His  will,  and  is  not 
affected  by  obstacles  and  hindrances  that  might  appear  or  disappear,  it  is 
impossible,  they  argue,  to  imagine  that  God  is  active  at  one  time  and  in- 
active at  another.  He  is,  on  the  contrary,  always  active  in  the  same  manner 
as  He  is  always  in  actual  existence. 

Seventh  Method.— The  actions  of  God  are  perfect ;  they  are  in  no  way 
defective,  nor  do  they  contain  anything  useless  or  superfluous.  In  similar 
terms  Aristotle  frequently  praises  Him,  when  he  says  that  Nature  is  wise  and 
does  nothing  in  vain,  but  makes  everything  as  perfect  as  possible.  The 
philosophers  therefore  contend  that  this  existing  Universe  is  so  perfect  that 
it  cannot  be  improved,  and  must  be  permanent ;  for  it  is  the  result  of  God  s 
wisdom,  which  is  not  only  always  present  in  His  essence,  but  is  identical 

with  it.  .  1        1  L 

All  arguments  in  favour  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  are  based  on  the 
above  methods,  and  can  be  traced  to  one  or  other  of  them.  The  following 
objection  is  also  raised  against  Creatio  ex  nihilo  :  How  could  God  ever  have 
been  inactive  without  producing  or  creating  anytlung  in  the  inhnitc  past  ? 
How  could  He  have  passed  the  long  infinite  period  which  preceded  the 
Creation  without  producing  anything,  so  as  to  commence,  as  it  were,  only 
yesterday,  the  Creation  of  the  Universe  ?  For  even  if  you  said,  e.g.,  that 
God  created  previouslv  as  many  successive  worlds  as  the  outermost  sphere 
could  contain  grains  of  mustard,  and  that  each  of  these  worlds  existed  ai 


176  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

many  years  :  considering  the  infinite  existence  of  God,  it  would  be  the  same 
as  if  He  had  only  yesterday  commenced  the  Creation.  For  when  we  once 
admit  the  beginning  of  the  existence  of  things  after  their  non-existence,  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  thousands  of  centuries  have  passed  since  the 
beginning,  or  only  a  short  time.  Those  who  defend  the  Eternity  of  the 
Universe  find  both  assumptions  equally  improbable. 

Eighth  Method. — The  following  method  is  based  on  the  circumstance  that 
the  theory  implies  a  belief  which  is  so  common  to  all  peoples  and  ages,  and  so 
universal,  that  it  appears  to  express  a  real  fact  and  not  merely  an  hypothesis. 
Aristotle  says  that  all  people  have  evidently  believed  in  the  permanency  and 
stability  of  the  heavens ;  and  thinking  that  these  were  eternal,  they  declared 
them  to  be  the  habitation  of  God  and  of  the  spiritual  beings  or  angels.  By  thus 
attributing  the  heavens  to  God,  they  expressed  their  belief  that  the  heavens 
are  indestructible.  Several  other  arguments  of  the  same  kind  are  employed 
by  Aristotle  in  treating  of  this  subject  in  order  to  support  the  results  of  his 
philosophical  speculation  by  common  sense. 

CHAPTER  XV 

In  this  chapter  I  intend  to  show  that  Aristotle  was  well  aware  that  he  had 
not  proved  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  He  was  not  mistaken  in  this 
respect.  He  knew  that  he  could  not  prove  his  theory,  and  that  his  argu- 
ments and  proofs  were  only  apparent  and  plausible.  They  are  the  least 
objectionable,  according  to  Alexander  ;  but,  according  to  the  same  authority, 
Aristotle  could  not  have  considered  them  conclusive,  after  having  himself 
taught  us  the  rules  of  logic,  and  the  means  by  which  arguments  can  be  refuted 
or  confirmed. 

The  reason  why  I  have  introduced  this  subject  is  this  :  Later  philosophers, 
disciples  of  Aristotle,  assume  that  he  has  proved  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe, 
and  most  of  those  who  believe  that  they  are  philosophers  blindly  follow  him 
in  this  point,  and  accept  all  his  arguments  as  conclusive  and  absolute  proofs. 
They  consider  it  wrong  to  differ  from  Aristotle,  or  to  think  that  he  was  ignor- 
ant or  mistaken  in  anything.  For  this  reason,  taking  their  standpoint,  I  show 
that  Aristotle  himself  did  not  claim  to  have  proved  the  Eternity  of  the  Uni- 
verse. He  says  in  his  book  Physics  (viii.,  chap,  i.)  as  follows  :  "  All  the 
Physicists  before  us  believed  that  motion  is  eternal,  except  Plato,  who  holds 
that  motion  is  transient ;  according  to  his  opinion  the  heavens  are  likewise 
transient."  Now  if  Aristotle  had  conclusive  proofs  for  his  theory,  he  would 
not  have  considered  it  necessary  to  support  it  by  citing  the  opinions  of  pre- 
ceding Physicists,  nor  would  he  have  found  it  necessary  to  point  out  the  folly 
and  absurdity  of  his  opponents.  For  a  truth,  once  established  by  proof, 
does  neither  gain  force  nor  certainty  by  the  consent  of  all  scholars,  nor  lose 
by  the  general  dissent.  We  further  find  that  Aristotle,  in  the  book  The 
Heavens  and  the  World,  introduces  his  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe 
in  the  following  manner  :  "  Let  us  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the  heavens, 
and  see  whether  they  are  the  product  of  something  or  not,  destructible  or 
not."  After  this  statement  of  the  problem,  he  proceeds  to  cite  the  views 
of  those  who  hold  that  the  heavens  have  had  a  beginning,  and  continues  thus  : 
"  By  doing  this,  our  theory  will  be  most  plausible  and  acceptable  in  the 


CREATION-ETERNITY   OF    THE    UNIVERSE      177 

opinion  of  profound  thinkers ;  and  it  will  be  the  more  so,  when,  as  wc  pro- 
pose, the  arguments  of  our  opponents  are  first  heard.  For  if  wc  were  to  state 
our  opinion  and  our  arguments  without  mentioning  those  of  our  opponents, 
our  words  would  be  received  less  favourably.  He  who  desires  to  be  just 
must  not  show  himself  hostile  to  his  opponent ;  he  must  have  sympathy  with 
him,  and  readily  acknowledge  any  truth  contained  in  his  words ;  he  must 
admit  the  correctness  of  such  of  his  opponent's  arguments  as  he  would  admit 
if  they  were  in  his  own  favour."  This  is  the  contents  of  the  words  of  Aris- 
totle. Now,  I  ask  you,  men  of  intelligence,  can  we  have  any  complaint 
against  him  after  this  frank  statement  ?  Or  can  any  one  now  imagine  that 
a  real  proof  has  been  given  for  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  ?  Or  can 
Aristotle,  or  any  one  else,  believe  that  a  theorem,  though  fully  proved,  would 
not  be  acceptable  unless  the  arguments  of  the  opponents  were  fully  refuted  .' 
We  must  also  take  into  consideration  that  Aristotle  describes  this  theory  as 
his  opinion,  and  his  proofs  as  arguments.  Is  Aristotle  ignorant  of  the  differ- 
ence between  argument  and  proof?  between  opinions,  which  may  be  received 
more  or  less  favourably,  and  truths  capable  of  demonstration  ?  or  would  rhe- 
torical appeal  to  the  impartiality  of  opponents  have  been  required  for  the 
support  of  his  theory  if  a  real  proof  had  been  given  ?  Certainly  not.  Aris- 
totle only  desires  to  show  that  his  theory  is  better  than  those  of  his  opponents, 
who  hold  that  philosophical  speculation  leads  to  the  conviction  that  the 
heavens  are  transient,  but  have  never  been  entirely  without  existence  ;  or 
that  the  heavens  have  had  a  beginning,  but  are  indestructible  ;  or  to  defend 
any  of  the  other  views  mentioned  by  him.  In  this  he  is  undoubtedly  right ; 
for  his  opinion  is  nearer  the  truth  than  theirs,  so  far  as  a  proof  can  be  taken 
from  the  nature  of  existing  things ;  we  differ  from  him,  as  will  be  explained. 
Passion,  that  exercises  great  influence  in  most  of  the  different  sects,  must  have 
influenced  even  the  philosophers  who  wished  to  affirm  that  Aristotle  demon- 
strated his  theory  by  proof.  Perhaps  they  really  believe  it,  and  assume  that 
Aristotle  himself  was  not  aware  of  it,  as  it  was  onJy  discovered  after  his  death  ! 
My  conviction  is,  that  what  Aristotle  says  on  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  the 
cause  of  the  variety  in  the  motion  of  the  spheres  and  the  order  of  the  Intelli- 
gences, cannot  be  proved,  and  that  Aristotle  never  intended  to  prove  these 
things.  I  agree  with  him  that  the  ways  of  proving  this  theory  have  their 
gates  closed  before  us,  there  being  no  foundation  on  which  to  build  up  the 
proof.  His  words  on  this  subject  arc  well  known.  He  says,  "  There  arc 
things  concerning  which  wc  arc  unable  to  reason,  or  which  we  find  too  high 
for  us ;  to  say  why  these  things  have  a  certain  property  is  as  difficult  as  to 
decide  whether  the  Universe  is  eternal  or  not."  So  far  Aristotle.  The 
interpretation  which  Abu-nasr  offers  of  this  parallel  is  well  known.  He 
denies  that  Aristotle  had  any  doubt  about  the  Eternity  of  the  Umvcrsc  and 
is  very  severe  upon  Galen,  who  maintains  that  this  theory  is  still  doubtful 
and  that  no  proof  has  been  offered.  According  to  Abu-nasr,  it  is  clear  am 
demonstrable  by  proof  that  the  heavens  are  eternal,  but  all  that  is  enclosed 
within  the  heavens  is  transient.  We  hold,  that  by  none  of  the  methods 
mentioned  in  this  chapter  can  a  theory  be  established,  refuted,  or  shaken. 

We  have  mentioned  these  things  only  because  we  know  that  the  majority 
of  those  who  consider  themselves  wise,  although  they  know  nothing  of 
science,  accept  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  on  the  authonty 


178  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

of  famous  scholars.  They  reject  the  words  of  the  prophets,  because  the 
latter  do  not  employ  any  scientific  method  by  which  only  a  few  persons 
would  be  instructed  who  are  intellectually  well  prepared,  but  simply  com- 
municate the  truth  as  received  by  Divine  inspiration. 

In  the  chapters  which  follow  we  will  expound  the  theory  of  the  Creation 
in  accordance  vnth  the  teaching  of  Scripture. 

CHAPTER  XVI 

In  this  chapter  I  will  first  expound  my  view  on  this  question,  and  then  sup- 
port it  by  argument — not  by  such  arguments  as  those  of  the  Mutakallemim, 
who  believe  that  they  have  proved  the  Creatio  ex  nihilo.  I  wiU  not  deceive 
myself,  and  consider  dialectical  methods  as  proofs  ;  and  the  fact  that  a  certain 
proposition  has  been  proved  by  a  dialectical  argument  will  never  induce  me 
to  accept  that  proposition,  but,  on  the  contrary,  will  weaken  my  faith  in  it, 
and  cause  me  to  doubt  it.  For  when  we  understand  the  fallacy  of  a  proof, 
our  faith  in  the  proposition  itself  is  shaken.  It  is  therefore  better  that  a 
proposition  which  cannot  be  demonstrated  be  received  as  an  axiom,  or  that 
one  of  the  two  opposite  solutions  of  the  problem  be  accepted  on  authority. 
The  methods  by  which  the  Mutakallemim  proved  the  Creatio  ex  nihilo  have 
already  been  described  by  me,  and  I  have  exposed  their  weak  points.  As  to 
the  proofs  of  Aristotle  and  his  followers  for  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe, 
they  are,  according  to  my  opinion,  not  conclusive  ;  they  are  open  to  strong 
objections,  as  will  be  explained.  I  intend  to  show  that  the  theory  of  the 
Creation,  as  taught  in  Scripture,  contains  nothing  that  is  impossible  ;  and 
that  aU  those  philosophical  arguments  which  seem  to  disprove  our  view 
contain  weak  points  which  make  them  inconclusive,  and  render  the  attacks 
on  our  view  untenable.  Since  I  am  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  my 
method,  and  consider  either  of  the  two  theories — viz.,  the  Eternity  of  the 
Universe,  and  the  Creation — as  admissible,  I  accept  the  latter  on  the  authority 
of  Prophecy,  which  can  teach  things  beyond  the  reach  of  philosophical  specu- 
lation. For  the  belief  in  prophecy  is,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  course  of  this 
treatise,  consistent  even  with  the  belief  in  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe. 
When  I  have  established  the  admissibility  of  our  theory,  I  vdll,  by  philoso- 
pliical  reasoning,  show  that  our  theory  of  the  Creation  is  more  acceptable 
than  that  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  ;  and  although  our  theory  includes 
points  open  to  criticism,  I  will  show  that  there  are  much  stronger  reasons  for 
the  rejection  of  the  theory  of  our  opponents. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  expound  the  method  by  which  the  proofs  given  for 
the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  can  be  refuted. 

CHAPTER  XVII 

?YTnm<.'^mii1iii  1 11  mkt\\\  '."tiifcia  f;^i^<;fnf;f  from  non-existence  ;  even  when 


the  substance  of  a  thing  has  been  in  existence,  and  has"  only  changed  its  form, 
the  thing  itself,  which  has  gone  through  the  process  of  genesis  and  develop- 
ment, and  has  arrived  at  its  final  state,  has  now  difi'erent  properties  frorn 
those  which  it  possessed  at  the  commencemenrol  the  transition  trorp  pnten- 
tlaFity  to  reality,  ui   LlLfUK!   LllHl   lim^.     lake,  e.e.,  the  human  ovum  as 


GREAT  ION -ETERNITY    OF    THE    UNIVERSE       179 

contained  in  the  female's  blood  when  still  included  in  its  vessels  •   its  nature 
is  diflFercnt  from  what  it  was  in  the  moment  of  conception,  when  it  is  met 
by  the  semen  of  the  male  and  begins  to  develop  ;  the  properties  of  the  semen  in 
that  moment  arc  different  from  the  properties  of  the  living  being  after  iu  birth 
when  fully  developed.     It  is  therefore  quite  impossible  to  infer  from  the 
nature  which  a  thing  possesses  after  having  passed  through  all  stages  of  its 
development,  what  the  condition  of  the  thing  has  been  in  the  moment  when 
this  process  commenced  ;   nor  does  the  condition  of  a  thing  in  this  moment 
show  what  its  previous  condition  has  been.     If  you  make  this  mistake,  and 
attempt  to  prove  the  nature  of  a  thing  in  potential  existence  by  its  properties 
when  actually  existing,  you  will  fall  into  great  confusion  ;    you  will  reject 
evident  truths  and  admit  false  opinions.     Let  us  assume,  in  our  above  in- 
stance, that  a  man  born  without  defect  had  after  his  birth  been  nursed  by 
his  mother  only  a  few  months ;   the  mother  then  died,  and  the  father  alone 
brought  him  up  in  a  lonely  island,  till  he  grew  up,  became  wise,  and  acquired 
knowledge.     Suppose  this  man  has  never  seen  a  woman  or  any  female  being  ; 
he  asks  some  person  how  man  has  come  into  existence,  and  how  he  has  de- 
veloped, and  receives  the  following  answer  :    "  Man  begins  his  existence  in 
the  womb  of  an  individual  of  his  own  class,  namely,  in  the  womb  of  a  female, 
which  has  a  certain  form.     While  in  the  womb  he  is  very  small  ;  yet  he  has 
life,  moves,  receives  nourishment,  and  gradually  grows,  till  he  arrives  at  a 
certain  stage  of  development.     He  then  leaves  the  womb  and  continues  to 
grow  till  he  is  in  the  condition  in  which  you  see  him."     The  orphan  will 
naturally  ask  :    "  Did  this  person,  when  he  lived,  moved,  and  grew  in  the 
womb,  eat  and  drink,  and  breathe  with  his  mouth  and  his  nostrils  ?     Did 
he  excrete  any  substance  ?  "     The  answer  will  be,  "  No."     Undoubtedly 
he  will  then  attempt  to  refute  the  statements  of  that  person,  and  to  prove 
their  impossibility,  by  referring  to  the  properties  of  a  fully  developed  person, 
in  the  following  manner  :   "  When  any  one  of  us  is  deprived  of  breath  for  a 
short  time  he  dies,  and  cannot  move  any  longer  :   how  then  can  we  imagine 
that  any  one  of  us  has  been  inclosed  in  a  bag  in  the  midst  of  a  body  for  several 
months  and  remained  alive,  able  to  move  ?     If  any  one  of  us  would  swallow  a 
living  bird,  the  bird  would  die  immediately  when  it  reached  the  stomach,  much 
more  so  when  it  came  to  the  lower  part  of  the  belly  ;   if  we  should  not  take 
food  or  drink  with  our  mouth,  in  a  few  days  we  should  undoubtedly  be  dead: 
how  then  can  man  remain  alive  for  months  without  taking  food  ?     If  any 
person  would  take  food  and  would  not  be  able  to  excrete  it,  great  pains  and 
death  would  follow  in  a  short  time,  and  yet  I  am  to  believe  that  man  has  lived 
for  months  without  that  function  !     Suppose  by  accident  a  hole  were  formed 
in  the  belly  of  a  person,  it  would  prove  fatal,  and  yet  we  are  to  believe  that 
the  navel  of  the  foetus  has  been  open  !      Why  should  the  fcctus  not  open  the 
eyes,  spread  forth  the  hands  and  stretch  out  the  legs,  if,  as  you  think,  the 
limbs  are  all  whole  and  perfect."     This  mode  of  reasoning  would  lead  to  the 
conclusion  that  man  cannot  come  into  existence  and  develop  in  the  manner 
described. 

If  philosophers  would  consider  this  example  well  and  reflect  on  it,  they 
would  find  that  it  represents  exactly  the  dispute  between  Aristotle  and  our- 
selves. We,  the  followers  of  Moses,  our  Teacher,  and  of  Abraham,  our 
Father,  believe  that  the  Universe  has  been  produced  and  has  developed  in  a 


i8o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED    ^51    «^  ^'^^JO 

certain  manner,  and  that  it  has  been  created  in  a  certain  order.  The  Aristo- y 
telians  oppose  us,  and  found  their  objections  on  the  properties  which  the 
things  in  the  Universe  possess  when  in  actual  existence  and  fully  developed. 
We  admit  the  existence  of  these  properties,  but  hold  that  they  are  by  no 
means  the  same  as  those  which  the  things  possessed  in  the  moment  of  their 
production ;  and  we  hold  that  these  properties  themselves  have  come  into 
existence  from  absolute  non-existence.  Their  arguments  are  therefore  no 
objection  whatever  to  our  theory ;  they  have  demonstrative  force  only 
against  those  who  hold  that  the  nature  of  things  as  at  present  in  existence 
proves  the  Creation.     But  this  is  not  my  opinion. 

I  will  now  return  to  our  theme,  viz.,  to  the  description  of  the  principal 
proofs  of  Aristotle,  and  show  that  they  prove  nothing  whatever  against  us, 
since  we  hold  that  God  brought  the  entire  Universe  into  existence  from 
absolute  non-existence,  and  that  He  caused  it  to  develop  into  the  present 
state.     Aristotle  says  that  the  materia  prima  is  eternal,  and  by  referring  to 
the  properties  of  transient  beings  he  attempts  to  prove  this  statement,  and 
to  show  that  the  materia  -prima  could  not  possibly  have  been  produced.     He 
is  right ;  we  do  not  maintain  that  the  materia  prima  has  been  produced  in 
the  same  manner  as  man  is  produced  from  the  ovum,  and  that  it  can  be 
destroyed  in  the  same  manner  as  man  is  reduced  to  dust.     But  we  believe 
that  God  created  it  from  nothing,  and  that  since  its  creation  it  has  its  own 
properties,  viz.,  that  all  things  are  produced  of  it  and  again  reduced  to  it, 
when  they  cease  to  exist ;   that  it  does  not  exist  without  Form  ;   and  that  it 
is  the  source  of  all  genesis  and  destruction.     Its  genesis  is  not  like  that  of  the 
things  produced  from   it,  nor  its   destruction  like  theirs  ;    for  it  has  been 
created  from  nothing,  and  if  it  should  please  the  Creator,  He  might  reduce  it 
to  absolutely  nothing.    The  same  applies  to  motion.    Aristotle  founds  some  of 
his  proofs  on  the  fact  that  motion  is  not  subject  to  genesis  or  destruction. 
This  is  correct ;    if  we  consider   motion  as   it   exists  at  present,  we  cannot 
imagine  that  in  its  totality  it  should  be  subject,  like  individual  motions,  to 
genesis  and  destruction.     In  like  manner  Aristotle  is  correct  in  saying  that 
circular  motion  is  without  beginning,  in  so  far  as  seeing  the  rotating  spherical 
body  in  actual  existence,  we  cannot  conceive  the  idea  that  that  rotation  has  ever 
been  absent.     The  same  argument  we  employ  as  regards  the  law  that  a  state 
of  potentiality  precedes  all  actual  genesis.     This  law  applies  to  the  Universe 
as  it  exists  at  present,  when  everything  produced  originates  in  another  thing  ; 
but  nothing  perceived  with  our  senses  or  comprehended  in  our  mind  can 
prove  that  a  thing  created  from  nothing  must  have  been  previously  in  a  state 
of  potentiality.     Again,  as  regards  the  theory  that  the  heavens  contain  no 
opposites  [and  are  therefore  indestructible],  we  admit  its  correctness ;    but 
we  do  not  maintain  that  the  production  of  the  heavens  has  taken  place  in 
the  same  way  as  that  of  a  horse  or  ass,  and  we  do  not  say  that  they  are  like 
plants  and  animals,  which  are  destructible  on  account  of  the  opposite  ele- 
ments they  containX  In  short,  the  properties  of  things  when  fully  developed 
contain  no  clue  as  to  what  have  been  the  properties  of  the  things  before  their 
perfection^Ji^We  therefore  do  not  reject  as  impossible  the  opinion  of  those 
who  say  tnat  the  heavens  were  produced  before  the  earth,  or  the  reverse,  or 
that  the  heavens  have  existed  without  stars,  or  that  certain  species  of  animals 
have  been  in  existence,  and  others  not.     For  the  state  of  the  whole  Universe 


CREATION— ETERNITY    OF    THE    UNIVERSE     i8i 

when  it  came  into  existence  may  be  compared  with  that  of  animals  when 
their  existence  begins ;  the  heart  evidently  precedes  the  testicles,  the  veins 
are  in  existence  before  the  bones ;  although,  when  the  animal  is  fully  de- 
veloped, none  of  the  parts  is  missing  which  is  essential  to  its  existence.  This 
remark  is  not  superfluous,  if  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  Creation  be  taken 
literally  ;  in  reality,  it  cannot  be  taken  literally,  as  will  be  shown  when  we 
shall  treat  of  this  subject. 

The  principle  laid  down  in  the  foregoing  must  be  well  understood  ;  it  is 
a  high  rampart  erected  round  the  Law,  and  able  to  resist  all  missiles  directed 
against  it.  Aristotle,  or  rather  his  followers,  may  perhaps  ask  us  how  we 
know  that  the  Universe  has  been  created  ;  and  that  other  forces  than  those 
it  has  at  present  were  acting  in  its  Creation,  since  we  hold  that  the  properties 
of  the  Universe,  as  it  exists  at  present,  prove  nothing  as  regards  its  creation  ? 
We  reply,  there  is  no  necessity  for  this  according  to  our  plan  ;  for  we  do  not 
desire  to  prove  the  Creation,  but  only  its  possibility  ;  and  this  possibility  is 
not  refuted  by  arguments  based  on  the  nature  of  the  present  Universe,  which 
we  do  not  dispute.  When  we  have  established  the  admissibility  of  our 
theory,  we  shall  then  show  its  superiority.  In  attempting  to  prove  the 
inadmissibility  of  Creatio  ex  nihilo,  the  Aristotelians  can  therefore  not  derive 
any  support  from  the  nature  of  the  Universe  ;  they  must  resort  to  the  notion 
our  mind  has  formed  of  God.  Their  proofs  include  the  three  methods  which 
I  have  mentioned  above,  and  which  are  based  on  the  notion  conceived  of 
God.  In  the  next  chapter  I  will  expose  the  weak  points  of  these  arguments, 
and  show  that  they  really  prove  nothing. 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

The  first  method  employed  by  the  philosophers  is  this :  they  assume  that  a 
transition  from  potentiality  to  actuality  would  take  place  in  the  Deity  itself, 
if  He  produced  a  thing  only  at  a  certain  fixed  time.  The  refutation  of  this 
argument  is  very  easy.  The  argument  applies  only  to  bodies  composed  of 
substance— the  element  that  possesses  the  possibility  [of  change]— and  form  ; 
for  when  such  a  body  does  not  act  for  some  time,  and  then  acts  by  virtue  of 
its  form,  it  must  undoubtedly  have  possessed  something  in  poUnttJ  that  hath 
now  become  actual,  and  the  transition  can  only  have  been  effected  by  some 
external  agent.  As  far  as  corporeal  bodies  are  concerned,  this  has  been  fully 
proved.  But  that  which  is  incorporeal  and  without  substance  docs  not 
include  anything  merely  possible  ;  everything  it  contains  is  always  m  exist- 
ence. The  above  argument  docs  not  apply  to  it,  and  it  is  not  impossible 
that  such  a  being  acts  at  one  time  and  does  not  act  at  another.  This  docs 
not  implv  a  change  in  the  incorporeal  being  itself  nor  a  transition  from 
potentiality  to  actuality.  The  Active  Intellect  may  be  taken  as  an  illustra- 
tion. According  to  Aristotle  and  his  school,  the  Active  Intellect,  an  incor- 
poreal being,  acts  at  one  time  and  does  not  act  at  another,  as  has  been  shown 
by  Abu-nasr  in  his  treatise  on  the  Intellect.  He  says  there  quite  correctly 
as  follows  :  "  It  is  an  evident  fact  that  the  Active  Intellect  docs  not  act 
continually,  but  only  at  times."  And  yet  he  docs  not  say  that  the  Active 
Intellect  is  changeable,  or  passes  from  a  state  of  potentiality  to  that  of  actual- 
ity  although  it  produces  at  one  time  something  which  it  has  not  produced 


i82  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

before.  For  there  is  no  relation  or  comparison  whatever  between  corporeal 
and  incorporeal  beings,  neither  in  the  moment  of  action  nor  in  that  of  in- 
action. It  is  only  by  homonymity  that  the  term  "  action  "  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  the  forms  residing  in  bodies,  and  also  in  reference  to  absolutely 
spiritual  beings.  The  circumstance  that  a  purely  spiritual  being  does  not 
effect  at  one  time  that  which  it  effects  at  another,  does  not  necessitate  a 
transition  from  potentiality  to  actuality ;  such  a  transition  is  necessary  in 
the  case  of  forces  connected  with  bodies.  It  might,  perhaps,  be  objected 
that  our  argument  is,  to  some  extent,  a  fallacy ;  since  it  is  not  due  to  any- 
thing contained  in  the  Active  Intellect  itself,  but  to  the  absence  of  substances 
sufficiently  prepared  for  its  action,  that  at  times  it  does  not  act ;  it  does  act 
always  when  substances  sufficiently  prepared  are  present,  and,  when  the 
action  does  not  continue,  it  is  ovdng  to  the  absence  of  substance  sufficiently 
prepared,  and  not  to  any  change  in  the  Intellect.  I  answer  that  it  is  not  our 
intention  to  state  the  reason  why  God  created  at  one  time  and  not  at  another  ; 
and,  in  referring  to  the  Active  Intellect  as  a  parallel,  we  do  not  mean  to  assert 
that  God  acts  at  one  time  and  not  at  another,  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
Active  Intellect,  an  absolutely  spiritual  being,  acts  intermittently.  We  do 
not  make  this  assertion,  and,  if  we  did,  the  conclusion  would  be  fallacious. 
What  we  infer,  and  what  we  are  justified  in  inferring,  is  this :  the  Active 
Intellect  is  neither  a  corporeal  object  nor  a  force  residing  in  a  body  ;  it  acts 
intermittently,  and  yet  whatever  the  cause  may  be  why  it  does  not  always 
act,  we  do  not  say  that  the  Active  Intellect  has  passed  from  a  state  of  poten- 
tiality to  that  of  actuality ;  or  that  it  implies  the  possibility  [of  change],  or 
that  an  agent  must  exist  that  causes  the  transition  from  potentiality  to 
actuality.  We  have  thus  refuted  the  strong  objection  raised  by  those  who 
believe  in  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  ;  since  we  believe  that  God  is  neither 
a  corporeal  body  nor  a  force  residing  in  a  body,  we  need  not  assume  that 
the  Creation,  after  a  period  of  inaction,  is  due  to  a  change  in  the  Creator 
Himself. 

The  second  method  employed  in  proving  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  is 
based  on  the  theory  that  all  wants,  changes,  and  obstacles  are  absent  from 
the  Essence  of  God.  Our  refutation  of  this  proof,  which  is  both  difficult 
and  profound,  is  this.  Every  being  that  is  endowed  with  free  wiU  and  per- 
forms certain  acts  in  reference  to  another  being,  necessarily  interrupts  those 
acts  at  one  time  or  another,  in  consequence  of  some  obstacles  or  changes. 
E.g.,  a  person  desires  to  have  a  house,  but  he  does  not  build  one,  because  he 
meets  with  some  obstacles :  he  has  not  the  material,  or  he  has  the  material, 
but  it  is  not  prepared  for  the  purpose  on  account  of  the  absence  of  proper 
instruments ;  or  he  has  material  and  instruments,  and  yet  does  not  build  a 
house,  because  he  does  not  desire  to  build  it ;  since  he  feels  no  want  for  a 
refuge.  When  changed  circumstances,  as  heat  or  cold,  impel  him  to  seek 
a  refuge,  then  he  desires  to  build  a  house.  Thus  changed  circumstances 
change  his  will,  and  the  will,  when  it  meets  with  obstacles,  is  not  carried  into 
effect.  This,  however,  is  only  the  case  when  the  causes  of  the  actions  are 
external  ;  but  when  the  action  has  no  other  purpose  whatever  than  to  fulfil 
the  will,  then  the  will  does  not  depend  on  the  existence  of  favourable  cir- 
cumstances. The  being  endowed  with  this  will  need  not  act  continually 
even  in  the  absence  of  all  obstacles,  because  there  does  not  exist  anything  for 


CREATION— ETERNITY    OF    THE    U\[]'ERSE      183 

the  sake  of  which  it  acts,  and  which,  in  the  absence  of  all  obstacles,  would 

necessitate  the  action  :  the  act  simply  follows  the  will.  But,  some  might 
ask,  even  if  wc  admit  the  correctness  of  all  this,  is  not  change  imputed  in  the 
fact  that  the  will  of  the  being  exists  at  one  time  and  not  at  another  ?  I 
reply  thus :  The  true  essence  of  the  will  of  a  being  is  simply  the  faculty  of 
conceiving  a  desire  at  one  time  and  not  conceiving  it  at  another.  In  the  case 
of  corporeal  beings,  the  will  which  aims  at  a  certain  external  object  changes 
according  to  obstacles  and  circumstances.  But  the  will  of  an  absolutely 
spiritual  being  which  does  not  depend  on  external  causes  is  unchangeable, 
and  the  fact  that  the  being  desires  one  thing  one  day  and  another  thing 
another  day,  does  not  imply  a  change  in  the  essence  of  that  being,  or  necessi- 
tate the  existence  of  an  external  cause  [for  this  change  in  the  desire].  Simi- 
larly it  has  been  shown  by  us  that  if  a  being  acted  at  one  time  and  did  not  act 
at  another,  this  would  not  involve  a  change  in  the  being  itself.  It  is  now 
clear  that  the  term  "  will "  is  homonymously  used  of  man's  will  and  of  the 
will  of  God,  there  being  no  comparison  whatever  between  God's  will  and 
that  of  man.  The  objection  is  refuted,  and  our  theory  is  not  shaken  by  it. 
This  is  all  we  desire  to  establish. 

The  third  method  employed  in  proving  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  is 
this :   whatever  the  wisdom  of  God  finds  necessary  to  produce  is  produced 
eo  ipso  ;  but  this  wisdom,  being  His  Essence,  is  eternal,  and  that  which  results 
from  His  wisdom  must  be  eternal.     This  is  a  very  weak  argument.     As  we 
do  not  understand  why  the  wisdom  of  God  produced  nine  spheres,  neither 
more  nor  less,  or  why  He  fixed  the  number  and  size  of  the  stars  exactly  as  they 
are  ;   so  we  cannot  understand  why  His  wisdom  at  a  certain  time  caused  the 
Universe  to  exist,  whilst  a  short  time  before  it  had  not  been  in  existence. 
All  things  owe  their  existence  to  His  eternal  and  constant  wisdom,  but  we 
are  utterly  ignorant  of  the  ways  and  methods  of  that  wisdom,  since,  according 
to  our  opinion  [that  God  has  no  attributes],  His  will  is  identical  witli  His 
wisdom,  and  all  His  attributes  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  namely.  His 
Essence  or  Wisdom.     More  will  be  said  on  this  question  in  the  section  on 
Providence.     Thus  this  objection  to  our  theory  falls  likewise  to  the  ground. 
There  is  no  evidence  for  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  neither 
in  the  fact  cited  by  Aristotle  of  the  general  consent  of  the  ancient  peoples 
when  they  describe  the  heavens  as  the  habitation  of  the  angels  and  of  God, 
nor  in  the  apparent  concurrence  of  Scriptural  texts  with  this  belief.     These 
facts  merely  prove  that  the  heavens  lead  us  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  the 
Intelligences,  i.e.,  ideals  and  angels,  and  that  these  lead  us  to  believe  in  the 
existence  of  God  ;   for  He  sets  them  in  motion,  and  rules  them.     We  will 
explain  and  show  that  there  is  no  better  evidence  for  the  existence  of  a 
Creator,  as  we  believe,  than  that  furnished  by  the  heavens ;  but  also  accord- 
ing to  the  opinion  of  the  philosophers,  as  has  been  mentioned  by  us,  they 
give  evidence  that  a  being  exists  that  sets  them  in  motion,  and  that  this  being 
is  neither  a  corporeal  body  nor  a  force  residing  in  a  body. 

Having  proved  that  our  theory  is  admissible,  and  not  impossible,  as  those 
who  defend  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  assert,  I  will,  in  the  chapters  which 
follow,  show  that  our  theory  is  preferable  from  a  philosophical  point  of  view, 
and  expose  the  absurdities  implied  in  the  theory  of  Aristotle. 


i84  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  XIX 

It  has  been  shown  that  according  to  Aristotle,  and  according  to  all  that 
defend  his  theory,  the  Universe  is  inseparable  from  God  ;  He  is  the  cause, 
and  the  Universe  the  effect ;  and  this  effect  is  a  necessary  one  ;  and  as  it 
cannot  be  explained  why  or  how  God  exists  in  this  particular  manner, 
namely,  being  One  and  incorporeal,  so  it  cannot  be  asked  concerning  the 
whole  Universe  why  or  how  it  exists  in  this  particular  way.  For  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  whole,  the  cause  as  well  as  the  effect,  exist  in  this  particular 
manner,  it  is  impossible  for  them  not  to  exist,  or  to  be  different  from  what 
they  actually  are.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  nature  of  everything 
remains  constant,  that  nothing  changes  its  nature  in  any  way,  and  that  such 
a  change  is  impossible  in  any  existing  thing.  It  would  also  follow  that  the 
Universe  is  not  the  result  of  design,  choice,  and  desire  ;  for  if  this  were  the 
case,  they  would  have  been  non-existing  before  the  design  had  been  con- 
ceived. 

We,  however,  hold  that  all  things  in  the  Universe  are  the  result  of  design, 
and  not  merely  of  necessity  ;  He  who  designed  them  may  change  them  when 
He  changes  His  design.  But  not  every  design  is  subject  to  change  ;  for 
there  are  things  which  are  impossible,  and  their  nature  cannot  be  altered, 
as  wall  be  explained.  Here,  in  this  chapter,  I  merely  wish  to  show  by  argu- 
ments almost  as  forcible  as  real  proofs,  that  the  Universe  gives  evidence  of 
design  ;  but  I  will  not  fall  into  the  error  in  which  the  Mutakallemim  have  so 
much  distinguished  themselves,  namely,  of  ignoring  the  existing  nature  of 
things  or  assuming  the  existence  of  atoms,  or  the  successive  creation  of 
accidents,  or  any  of  their  propositions  which  I  have  tried  to  explain,  and 
which  are  intended  to  establish  the  principle  of  Divine  selection.  You  must 
not,  however,  think  that  they  understood  the  principle  in  the  same  sense  as 
we  do,  although  they  undoubtedly  aimed  at  the  same  thing,  and  mentioned 
the  same  things  which  we  also  will  mention,  when  they  treated  of  Divine 
Selection.  For  they  do  not  distinguish  between  selection  in  the  case  of  a  plant 
to  make  it  red  and  not  white,  or  sweet  and  not  bitter,  and  determination  in 
the  case  of  the  heavens  which  gave  them  their  peculiar  geometrical  form 
and  did  not  give  them  a  triangular  or  quadrilateral  shape.  The  Mutakal- 
lemim established  the  principle  of  determination  by  means  of  their  pro- 
positions, which  have  been  enumerated  above  (Part  I.,  chap.  Ixxiii.).  I  wiU 
establish  this  principle  only  as  far  as  necessary,  and  onlyby  philosophical 
propositions  based  on  the  nature  of  things.  But  before  I  begin  my  argu- 
ment, I  wiU  state  the  following  facts :  Matter  is  common  to  things  different 
from  each  other  ;  there  must  be  either  one  external  cause  which  endows  this 
matter  partly  with  one  property,  partly  with  another,  or  there  must  be  as 
many  different  causes  as  there  are  different  forms  of  the  matter  common  to 
aU  things.  This  is  admitted  by  those  who  assume  the  Eternity  of  the  Uni- 
verse. After  having  premised  this  proposition,  I  will  proceed  with  the 
discussion  of  our  theme  from  an  Aristotelian  point  of  view,  in  form  of  a 
dialogue. 

ff^e- — You  have  proved  that  all  things  in  the  sublunary  world  have  one 
common  substance  ;  why  then  do  the  species  of  things  vary  ?  why  are  the 
individuals  in  each  species  different  from  each  other  ? 


CREATION-ETERNITY    OF    THE    UNIVERSE     185 

Aristotelian. — Because  the  composition  of  the  things  formed  of  that  sub- 
stance varies.  For  the  common  substance  at  first  received  four  different 
forms,  and  each  form  was  endowed  with  two  qualities,  and  through  these 
four  qualities  the  substance  was  turned  into  the  elements  of  which  all  things 
are  formed.  The  composition  of  the  elements  takes  place  in  the  following 
manner  : — First  they  are  mixed  in  consequence  of  the  motion  of  the  spheres, 
and  then  they  combine  together  ;  a  cause  for  variation  arises  then  in  the 
variation  of  the  degree  of  heat,  cold,  moisture,  and  dryness  of  the  elements 
which  form  the  constituent  parts  of  the  things.  By  these  different  com- 
binations things  are  variously  predisposed  to  receive  different  forms ;  and 
these  in  their  turn  are  again  prepared  to  receive  other  forms,  and  so  on. 
Each  generic  form  finds  a  wide  sphere  in  its  substance  both  as  regards  quality 
and  quantity  ;  and  the  individuals  of  the  classes  vary  accordingly.  This  is 
fully  explained  in  Natural  Science.  It  is  quite  correct  and  clear  to  every 
one  that  readily  acknowledges  the  truth,  and  does  not  wish  to  deceive 
himself. 

^<?.— Since  the  combination  of  the  elements  prepares  substances  and 
enables  them  to  receive  different  forms,  what  has  prepared  the  first  substance 
and  caused  one  part  of  it  to  receive  the  form  of  fire,  another  part  the  form 
of  earth,  and  the  parts  between  these  two  the  forms  of  water  and  of  air, 
since  one  substance  is  common  to  all  ?  Through  what  has  the  substance  of 
earth  become  more  fit  for  the  form  of  earth,  and  the  substance  of  fire  more 
fit  for  that  of  fire  ? 

^;.._The  difference  of  the  elements  was  caused  by  their  different  position  ; 
for  the  different  places  prepared  the  same  substance  differently,  m  the 
following  way  :  the  portion  nearest  the  surrounding  sphere  became  more 
rarified  and  svnfter  in  motion,  and  thus  approaching  the  nature  of  that 
sphere,  it  received  by  this  preparation  the  form  of  fire.  The  farther  the 
substance  is  away  from  the  surrounding  sphere  towards  the  centre,  the  denser, 
the  more  solid,  and  the  less  luminous  it  is ;  it  becomes  earth ;  the  same  is 
the  cause  of  the  formation  of  water  and  air.  This  is  necessarily  so ;  for  it 
would  be  absurd  to  deny  that  each  part  of  the  substance  is  in  a  certain  place  ; 
or  to  assume  that  the  surface  is  identical  with  the  centre,  or  the  centre  with 
the  surface.  This  difference  in  place  determined  the  different  forms,  i.e., 
predisposed  the  substance  to  receive  different  forms. 

We.— Is  the  substance  of  the  surrounding  sphere,  i.e.,  the  heavens,  the 

same  as  that  of  the  elements  ?  ^^a  tv. 

Ar.—^o  ;  the  substance  is  different,  and  the  forms  are  different  1  he 
term  "  body  "  is  homonymouslv  used  of  these  bodies  below  and  of  the  hea- 
vens, as  has  been  shown  by  modern  philosophers.  Ml  this  has  been  demon- 
strated by  proof.  .  .       , 

But  let  now  the  reader  of  this  treatise  hear  what  I  have  to  say.  Aristotle 
hass  proved  that  the  difference  of  forms  becomes  evident  by  the  difference 
of  actions.  Since,  therefore,  the  motion  of  the  elements  is  rectilinear,  and 
that  of  the  spheres  circular,  we  infer  that  the  substances  are  different.  1  his 
inference  is  supported  by  Natural  Science.  When  we  further  notice  that 
substances  with  rectilinear  motion  differ  in  their  directions,  that  some  move 
upward,  some  downward,  and  that  substances  which  move  in  the  sarne  direc- 
tion have  different  velocities,  we  infer  that  their  forms  must  be  different. 


[86  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Thus  we  learn  that  there  are  four  elements.  In  the  same  way  we  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  substance  of  all  the  spheres  is  the  same,  since  they 
all  have  circular  motion.  Their  forms,  however,  are  different,  since  one 
sphere  moves  from  east  to  west,  and  another  from  west  to  east ;  and  their 
motions  have  also  different  velocities.  We  can  now  put  the  following  ques- 
tion to  Aristotle  :  There  is  one  substance  common  to  all  spheres ;  each  one 
has  its  own  peculiar  form.  Who  thus  determined  and  predisposed  these 
spheres  to  receive  diflFerent  forms  ?  Is  there  above  the  spheres  any  being 
capable  of  determining  this  except  God  ?  I  will  show  the  profundity  and  the 
extraordinary  acumen  which  Aristotle  displayed  when  this  question  troubled 
him.  He  strove  very  hard  to  meet  this  objection  with  arguments,  which, 
however,  were  not  borne  out  by  facts.  Although  he  does  not  mention  this 
objection,  it  is  clear  from  his  words  that  he  endeavours  to  show  the  nature 
of  the  spheres,  as  he  has  shown  that  of  the  things  in  the  sublunary  world. 
Everything  is,  according  to  him,  the  result  of  a  law  of  Nature,  and  not  the 
result  of  the  design  of  a  being  that  designs  as  it  likes,  or  the  determination  of 
a  being  that  determines  as  it  pleases.  He  has  not  carried  out  the  idea  con- 
sistently, and  it  will  never  be  done.  He  tries  indeed  to  find  the  cause  why 
the  sphere  moves  from  east  and  not  from  west ;  why  some  spheres  move  with 
greater  velocity,  others  with  less  velocity,  and  he  finds  the  cause  of  these 
differences  in  their  diflFerent  positions  in  reference  to  the  uppermost  sphere. 
He  further  attempts  to  show  why  there  are  several  spheres  for  each  of  the 
seven  planets,  while  there  is  only  one  sphere  for  the  large  number  of  fixed 
stars.  For  all  this  he  endeavours  to  state  the  reason,  so  as  to  show  that  the 
whole  order  is  the  necessary  result  of  the  laws  of  Nature.  He  has  not  attained 
his  object.  For  as  regards  the  things  in  the  sublunary  world,  his  explanatioiis 
are  in  accordance  with  facts,  and  the  relation  between  cause  and  effect  is 
clearly  shown.  It  can  therefore  be  assumed  that  everything  is  the  necessary 
result  of  the  motions  and  influences  of  the  spheres.  But  when  he  treats  of  the 
properties  of  the  spheres,  he  does  not  clearly  show  the  causal  relation,  nor 
does  he  explain  the  phenomena  in  that  systematic  way  which  the  hypothesis 
of  natural  laws  would  demand.  For  let  us  consider  the  spheres  :  in  one  case 
a  sphere  with  greater  velocity  is  above  a  sphere  with  less  velocity,  in  another 
case  we  notice  the  reverse  ;  in  a  third  case  there  are  two  spheres  with  equal 
velocities,  one  above  the  other.  There  are,  besides,  other  phenomena  which 
speak  strongly  against  the  hypothesis  that  all  is  regulated  by  the  laws  of 
Nature,  and  I  will  devote  a  special  chapter  to  the  discussion  of  these  pheno- 
mena. In  short,  there  is  no  doubt  ^that  Aristotle  knew  the  weakness  of  his 
arguments  in  tracing  and  describing  the  cause  of  all  these  things,  and  there- 
fore he  prefaces  his  researches  on  these  things  as  follows  :— "  We  will  now 
thoroughly  investigate  two  problems,  which  it  is  our  proper  duty  to  inves- 
tigate and  to  discuss  according  to  our  capacity,  wisdom,  and  opinion.  This 
our  attempt  must  not  be  attributed  to  presumption  and  pride,  but  to  our 
extraordinary  zeal  in  the  study  of  philosophy  ;  when  we  attempt  the  highest 
and  grandest  problems,  and  endeavour  to  oflFer  some  proper  solution,  every 
one  that  hears  it  should  rejoice  and  be  pleased."  So  far  Aristotle.  This  shows 
that  he  undoubtedly  knew  the  weakness  of  his  theory.  How  much  weaker 
must  it  appear  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  science  of  Astronomy  was  not 
yet  fully  developed,  and  that  in  the  days  of  Aristotle  the  motions  of  the 


CREATION— ETERNITY    OF    THE    UNIVERSE     187 

spheres  were  not  known  so  well  as  they  are  at  present.  I  think  that  it  wai 
the  object  of  Aristotle  in  attributing  in  his  Metaphysics  one  Intelligence  to 
every  sphere,  to  assume  the  existence  of  something  capable  of  determining 
the  peculiar  course  of  each  sphere.  Later  on  I  will  show  that  he  has  not 
gained  anything  thereby ;  but  now  I  will  explain  the  words,  "  according 
to  our  capacity,  wisdom,  and  opinion,"  occurring  in  the  passage  which  wc 
quoted,  I  have  not  noticed  that  any  of  the  commentators  explain  them. 
The  term  "  our  opinion  "  refers  to  the  principle  that  everything  is  the  result 
of  natural  laws,  or  to  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  By  "  our 
wisdom  "  he  meant  the  knowledge  of  that  which  is  clear  and  generally 
accepted,  viz.,  that  the  existence  of  every  one  of  these  things  is  due  to  a 
certain  cause,  and  not  to  chance.  By  "  our  capacity  "  he  meant  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  our  intellect  to  find  the  causes  of  all  these  things.  He  only  intended 
to  trace  the  causes  for  a  few  of  them  ;  and  so  he  did.  For  he  gives  an  ex- 
cellent reason  why  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars  moves  slowly,  while  the  other 
spheres  move  with  greater  velocity,  namely,  because  its  motion  is  in  a  differ- 
ent direction  [from  the  uppermost  sphere].  He  further  says  that  the  more 
distant  a  sphere  is  from  the  eighth  sphere  the  greater  is  its  velocity.  But 
this  rule  does  not  hold  good  in  all  cases,  as  I  have  already  explained  (p.  174). 
More  forcible  still  is  the  following  objection  :  There  are  spheres  below  the 
eighth  that  move  from  east  to  west.  Of  these  each  upper  one,  according  to 
this  rule,  would  have  a  greater  velocity  than  the  lower  one  ;  and  the  velocity 
of  these  spheres  would  almost  equal  that  of  the  ninth  sphere.  But  Astro- 
nomy had,  in  the  days  of  Aristotle,  not  yet  developed  to  the  height  it  has 
reached  at  present. 

According  to  our  theory  of  the  Creation,  all  this  can  easily  be  explained  ; 
for  we  say  that  there  is  a  being  that  determines  the  direction  and  the  velocity 
of  the  motion  of  each  sphere  ;  but  we  do  not  know  the  reason  why  the  wisdom 
of  that  being  gave  to  each  sphere  its  peculiar  property.  If  Aristotle  had  been 
able  to  state  the  cause  of  the  difference  in  the  motion  of  the  spheres,  and 
show  that  it  corresponded  as  he  thought  to  their  relative  positions,  this 
would  have  been  excellent,  and  the  variety  in  their  motions  would  be  ex- 
plained in  the  same  way  as  the  variety  of  the  elements,  by  their  relative 
position  between  the  centre  and  the  surface  ;  but  this  is  not  the  case,  as  I 
said  before. 

There  is  a  phenomenon  in  the  spheres  which  more  clearly  shows  the  exist- 
ence of  voluntary  determination  ;  it  cannot  be  explained  otherwise  than  by 
assuming  that  some  being  designed  it :  this  phenomenon  is  the  existence  of 
the  stars.  The  fact  that  the  sphere  is  constantly  in  motion,  while  the  stars 
remain  stationary,  indicates  that  the  substance  of  the  stars  is  different  from 
that  of  the  spheres.  Abu-nasr  has  already  mentioned  the  fact  in  his  additions 
to  the  Physics  of  Aristotle.  He  says :  "  There  is  a  difference  between  the 
stars  and  the  spheres ;  for  the  spheres  are  transparent,  the  stars  are  opaque  ; 
and  the  cause  of  this  is  that  there  is  a  difference,  however  small  it  may  be, 
between  their  substances  and  forms."  So  far  Abu-nasr.  But  I  do  not  say  that 
there  is  a  small  difference,  but  a  very  great  difference  ;  because  I  do  not  infer 
it  from  the  transparency  of  the  spheres,  but  from  their  motions.  I  ain  con- 
vinced that  there  are  three  different  kinds  of  substance,  with  three  different 
forms,  namely  :— (i)  Bodies  which  never  move  of  their  own  accord  ;  such  arc 


i88  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  bodies  of  the  stars ;  (2)  bodies  which  always  move,  such  are  the  bodies  of 
the  spheres ;  (3)  bodies  which  both  move  and  rest,  such  are  the  elements. 
Now,  I  ask,  what  has  united  these  two  bodies,  which,  according  to  my 
opinion,  differ  very  much  from  each  other,  though,  according  to  Abu-nasr, 
only  a  little  ?  Who  has  prepared  the  bodies  for  this  union  ?  In  short,  it 
would  be  strange  that,  without  the  existence  of  design,  one  of  two  different 
bodies  should  be  joined  to  the  other  in  such  a  manner  that  it  is  fixed  to  it 
in  a  certain  place  but  does  not  combine  with  it.  It  is  still  more  difficult  to 
explain  the  existence  of  the  numerous  stars  in  the  eighth  sphere  ;  they  are 
all  spherical ;  some  of  them  are  large,  some  small ;  here  we  notice  two  stars 
apparently  distant  from  each  other  one  cubit ;  there  a  group  of  ten  close 
together ;  whilst  in  another  place  there  is  a  large  space  without  any  star. 
What  determined  that  the  one  small  part  should  have  ten  stars,  and  the  other 
portion  should  be  without  any  star  ?  and  the  whole  body  of  the  sphere 
being  uniform  throughout,  why  should  a  particular  star  occupy  the  one  place 
and  not  another?  The  answer  to  these  and  similar  questions  is  very  difficult, 
and  almost  impossible,  if  we  assume  that  all  emanates  from  God  as  the  neces- 
sary result  of  certain  permanent  laws,  as  Aristotle  holds.  But  if  we  assume 
that  all  this  is  the  result  of  design,  there  is  nothing  strange  or  improbable ; 
and  the  only  question  to  be  asked  is  this  :  What  is  the  cause  of  this  design  ? 
The  answer  to  this  question  is  that  all  this  has  been  made  for  a  certain  pur- 
pose, though  we  do  not  know  it ;  there  is  nothing  that  is  done  in  vain,  or  by 
chance.  It  is  well  known  that  the  veins  and  nerves  of  an  individual  dog  or 
ass  are  not  the  result  of  chance  ;  their  magnitude  is  not  determined  by 
chance  ;  nor  is  it  by  chance,  but  for  a  certain  purpose,  that  one  vein  is  thick, 
another  thin  ;  that  one  nerve  has  many  branches,  another  has  none  ;  that 
one  goes  dowm  straight,  whilst  another  is  bent ;  it  is  well  known  that  all  this 
must  be  just  as  it  is.  How,  then,  can  any  reasonable  person  imagine  that  the 
position,  magnitude,  and  number  of  the  stars,  or  the  various  courses  of  their 
spheres,  are  purposeless,  or  the  result  of  chance  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that 
every  one  of  these  things  is  necessary  and  in  accordance  with  a  certain  design  ; 
and  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  these  things  should  be  the  necessary 
result  of  natural  laws,  and  not  that  of  design. 

The  best  proof  for  design  in  the  Universe  I  find  in  the  different  motions 
of  the  spheres,  and  in  the  fixed  position  of  the  stars  in  the  spheres.  For  this 
reason  you  find  all  the  prophets  point  to  the  spheres  and  stars  when  they 
want  to  prove  that  there  must  exist  a  Divine  Being.  Thus  Abraham  re- 
flected on  the  stars,  as  is  well  known  ;  Isaiah  (xl.  26)  exhorts  to  learn  from 
them  the  existence  of  God,  and  says,  "  Lift  up  your  eyes  on  high,  and  behold 
who  hath  created  these  things  ?  "  Jeremiah  [calls  God]  "  The  Maker  of 
the  heavens  "  ;  Abraham  calls  Him  "  The  God  of  the  heavens  "  (Gen.  xxiv. 
7)  ;  [Moses],  the  chief  of  the  Prophets,  uses  the  phrase  explained  by  us  (Part 
I.,  chap.  Ixx.),  "  He  who  ridcth  on  the  heavens  "  (Dcut.  xxxiii.  26).  The 
proof  taken  from  the  heavens  is  convincing  ;  for  the  variety  of  things  in  the 
sublunary  world,  though  their  substance  is  one  and  the  same,  can  be  explained 
as  the  work  of  the  influences  of  the  spheres,  or  the  result  of  the  variety  in  the 
position  of  the  substance  in  relation  to  the  spheres,  as  has  been  shown  by 
Aristotle.  But  who  has  determined  the  variety  in  the  spheres  and  the  stars, 
if  not  the  Will  of  God  ?      To  say  that  the  Intelligences  have  determined  it 


THEORY    OF    ARISTOTLE  189 

is  of  no  use  whatever  ;  for  the  Intelligences  are  not  corporeal,  and  have  no 
local  relation  to  the  spheres.  Why  then  should  the  one  sphere  in  its  desire 
to  approach  the  Intelligence,  move  eastward,  and  another  westward  ?  Is 
the  one  Intelligence  in  the  east,  the  other  in  the  west  ?  or  why  docs  one 
move  with  great  velocity,  another  slowly  ?  This  difference  is  not  in  accord- 
ance with  their  distances  from  each  other,  as  is  well  known.  We  must  then 
say  that  the  nature  and  essence  of  each  sphere  necessitated  its  motion  in  a 
certain  direction,  and  in  a  certain  manner,  as  the  consequence  of  its  desire 
to  approach  its  Intelligence.  Aristotle  clearly  expresses  this  opinion.  VVc 
thus  have  returned  to  the  part  from  which  we  started  ;  and  we  ask,  Since 
the  substance  of  all  things  is  the  same,  what  made  the  nature  of  one  portion 
different  from  another  ?  Why  has  this  sphere  a  desire  which  produces  a 
motion  different  from  that  which  the  desire  of  another  sphere  produces  ? 
This  must  have  been  done  by  an  agent  capable  of  determining.  We  have 
thus  been  brought  to  examine  two  questions  : — (i)  Is  it  necessary  to  assume 
that  the  variety  of  the  things  in  the  Universe  is  the  result  of  Design,  and  not 
of  fixed  laws  of  Nature,  or  is  it  not  necessary  .?  (2)  Assuming  that  all  this  is 
the  result  of  Design,  does  it  follow  that  it  has  been  created  after  not  having 
existed,  or  does  Creatio  ex  nihilo  not  follow,  and  has  the  Being  which  has 
determined  all  this  done  always  so  ?  Some  of  those  who  believe  in  the  Eter- 
nity of  the  Universe  hold  the  last  opinion.  I  will  now  begin  the  examin- 
ation of  these  two  questions,  and  explain  them  as  much  as  necessary  in  the 
following  chapters. 

CHAPTER  XX 

AccoRDiNO  to  Aristotle,  none  of  the  products  of  Nature  are  due  to  chance. 
His  proof  is  this  :  That  which  is  due  to  chance  does  not  reappear  constantly 
nor  frequently,  but  all  products  of  Nature  reappear  either  constantly  or  at 
least  frequently.     The  heavens,  with  all  that  they  contain,  are  constant  ; 
they  never  change,  as  has  been  explained,  neither  as  regards  their  essence 
nor  as  regards  their  place.     But  in  the  sublunary  world  we  find  both  things 
which  arc  constant  and  things  which  reappear  frequently  [though  not  con- 
stantly].    Thus,  e.g.,  the  heat  of  fire  and  the  downward  tendency  of  a  stone 
are  constant  properties,  whilst  the  form  and  life  of  the  individuals  in  each 
species  are  the  same  in  most  cases.     All  this  is  clear.     If  the  parts  of  the 
Universe  are  not  accidental,  how  can  the  whole  Universe  be  considered  as 
the  result  of  chance  ?     Therefore  the  existence  of  the  Universe  is  not  due 
to  chance.     The  following  is,  in  short,  the  objection  which  Aristotle  raises 
against  one  of  the  earlier  philosophers  who  assumed  that  the  Universe  is  the 
result  of  chance,  and  that  it  came  into  existence  by  itself,  without  any  cause 
Some  assume  that  the  heavens  and  the  whole  Universe  came  into  existence 
spontaneously,  as  well  as  the  rotation  and  motion  [of  the  spheres],  which  has 
produced  the  variety  of  things  and  established  their  present  order.     This 
opinion  implies  a  great  adsurdity.     They  admit  that  anim.ils  and  plants  do 
not  owe  their  existence  or  production  to  chance,  but  to  a  certain  cause,  be 
that  cause  Nature,  or  reason,  or  the  like  ;    e.g.,  they  do  not  assume  that 
everything  might  be  formed  by  chance  of  a  certain  seed  or  semen,  but  that 
of  a  certain  seed  only  an  olive-tree  is  produced,  and  of  a  certain  semen  only 


igo  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

a  human  being  is  developed.  And  yet  they  think  that  the  heavens,  and  those 
bodies  which  appear  divine  among  the  rest  of  bodies,  came  into  existence 
spontaneously,  without  the  action  of  any  such  cause  as  produces  plants  and 
animals.  Having  thus  examined  this  theory,  Aristotle  then  proceeds  to 
refute  it  at  greater  length.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  Aristotle  believes  and 
proves  that  things  in  real  existence  are  not  accidental ;  they  cannot  be  acci- 
dental, because  they  are  essential,  i.e.,  there  is  a  cause  which  necessitates  that 
they  should  be  in  their  actual  condition,  and  on  account  of  that  cause  they 
are  just  as  they  in  reality  are.  This  has  been  proved,  and  it  is  the  opinion 
of  Aristotle.  But  I  do  not  think  that,  according  to  Aristotle,  the  rejection 
of  the  spontaneous  origin  of  things  implies  the  admission  of  Design  and  Will. 
For  as  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  two  opposites,  so  it  is  impossible  to  recon- 
cile the  two  theories,  that  of  necessary  existence  by  causality,  and  that  of 
Creation  by  the  desire  and  will  of  a  Creator.  For  the  necessary  existence 
assumed  by  Aristotle  must  be  understood  in  this  sense,  that  for  everything 
that  is  not  the  product  of  work  there  must  be  a  certain  cause  that  produces 
it  with  its  properties ;  for  this  cause  there  is  another  cause,  and  for  the 
second  a  third,  and  so  on.  The  series  of  causes  ends  with  the  Prime  Cause, 
from  which  everything  derives  existence,  since  it  is  impossible  that  the  series 
should  continue  ad  infinitum.  He  nevertheless  does  not  mean  to  say  that  the 
existence  of  the  Universe  is  the  necessary  product  of  the  Creator,  i.e.,  the 
Prime  Cause,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  shadow  is  caused  by  a  body,  or  heat 
by  fire,  or  light  by  the  sun.  Only  those  who  do  not  comprehend  his  words 
attribute  such  ideas  to  him.  He  uses  here  the  term  necessary  in  the  same 
sense  as  we  use  the  term  when  we  say  that  the  existence  of  the  intellectus 
necessarily  implies  that  of  the  intellectum,  for  the  former  is  the  efficient  cause 
of  the  latter  in  so  far  as  intellectum.  Even  Aristotle  holds  that  the  Prime 
Cause  is  the  highest  and  most  perfect  Intellect ;  he  therefore  says  that  the 
First  Cause  is  pleased,  satisfied,  and  delighted  with  that  which  necessarily 
derives  existence  from  Him,  and  it  is  impossible  that  He  should  wish  it  to 
be  different.  But  we  do  not  call  this  "  design,"  and  it  has  nothing  in  common 
with  design.  E.g.,  man  is  pleased,  satisfied,  and  delighted  that  he  is  endowed 
with  eyes  and  hands,  and  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  desire  it  to  be  other- 
wise, and  yet  the  eyes  and  hands  which  a  man  has  are  not  the  result  of  his 
design,  and  it  is  not  by  his  own  determination  that  he  has  certain  properties 
and  is  able  to  perform  certain  actions.  The  notion  of  design  and  deter- 
mination applies  only  to  things  not  yet  in  existence,  when  there  is  still  the 
possibility  of  their  being  in  accordance  with  the  design  or  not.  I  do  not 
know  whether  the  modern  Aristotelians  understood  his  words  to  imply  that 
the  existence  of  the  Universe  presupposes  some  cause  in  the  sense  of  design 
and  determination,  or  whether,  in  opposition  to  him,  they  assumed  design 
and  determination,  in  the  belief  that  this  does  not  conflict  with  the  thcorv 
of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe. 

Having  explained  this,  I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  opinions  of 
the  modern  philosophers. 

CHAPTER  XXI 
Some  of  the  recent  philosoplicrs  who  adhere  to  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of 


THEORY    OF    ARISTOTLE  uji 

the  Universe  hold  that  God  produces  the  Universe,  that  He  by  His  will  de- 
signs and  determines  its  existence  and  form  ;  they  reject,  however,  ilie  theory 
that  this  act  took  place  at  one  certain  time,  and  assume  that  this  always  has 
been  the  case,  and  will  always  be  so.     The  circumstance  that  we  cannot 
imagine  an  agent  otherwise  than  preceding  the  result  of  its  action,  they 
explain  by  the  fact  that  this  is  invariably  the  case  in  all  that  wc  produce  ; 
because  for  agents  of  the  same  kind  as  we  are,  there  are  some  moments  in 
which  they  are  not  active,  and  are  only  agents  in  fotentia  ;    they  become 
agents  when  they  act.     But  as  regards  God  there  are  no  moments  of  non- 
action, or  of  potentiality  in  any  respect ;   He  is  not  before  His  work.  He  is 
always  an  actual  agent.     And  as  there  is  a  great  difference  between  His 
essence  and  ours,  so  is  also  a  great  difference  between  the  relation  of  His  work 
to  Him  and  the  relation  of  our  work  to  us.     They  apply  the  same  argument 
to  will  and  determination  ;  for  there  is  no  difference  in  this  respect  whether 
we  say  He  acts,  wills,  designs,  or  determines.     They  further  assume  that 
change  in  His  action  or  will  is  inadmissible.     It  is  therefore  clear  that  these 
philosophers  abandoned   the  term   "  necessary  result,"    but  retained    the 
theory  of  it ;     they  perhaps  sought  to  use  a  better  expression,  or  to  remove  an 
objectionable  term.     For  it  is  the  same  thing,  whether  we  say  in  accordance 
with  the  view  of  Aristotle  that  the  Universe  is  the  result  of  the  Prime  Cause, 
and  must  be  eternal  as  that  Cause  is  eternal,  or  in  accordance   with   these 
philosophers  that  the  Universe  is  the  result  of  the  act,  design,  will,  selection, 
and  determination  of  God,  but  it  has  always  been  so,  and  will  always  be  so  ; 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  rising  of  the  sun  undoubtedly  produces  the  day, 
and  yet  it  does  not  precede  it.     But  when  we  speak  of  design  we  do  not  mean 
it  in  this  sense  ;  we  mean  to  express  by  it  that  the  Universe  is  not  the  "  neces- 
sary result  "  of  God's  existence,  as  the  effect  is  the  necessary  result  of  the 
efficient  cause  ;    in  the  latter  case  the  effect  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
cause  ;  it  cannot  change  unless  the  cause  changes  entirely,  or  at  least  in  some 
respect.     If  we  accept  this  explanation  we  easily  see  how  absurd  it  is  to  say 
that  the  Universe  is  in  the  same  relation  to  God  as  the  effect  is  to  the  efficient 
cause,  and  to  assume  at  the  same  time  that  the  Universe  is  the  result  of  the 
action  and  determination  of  God. 

Having  fully  explained  this  subject,  we  come  to  the  question  whether  the 
cause,  which  must  be  assumed  for  the  variety  of  properties  noticed  in  the 
heavenly  beings,  is  merely  an  efficient  cause,  that  must  necessarily  produce 
that  variety  as  its  effect,  or  whether  that  variety  is  due  to  a  determining 
agent,  such  as  we  believe,  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  Moses  our  Teacher. 
Before  I  discuss  this  question  I  will  first  explain  fully  what  Aristotle  means 
by  "  necessary  result  "  ;  after  that  I  will  show  by  such  philosophical  argu- 
ments as  are  free  from  every  fallacy  why  I  prefer  the  theory  of  Crcatio  ex 
nihilo.  It  is  clear  that  when  he  says  that  the  first  Intelligence  is  the  neces- 
sary result  of  the  existence  of  God,  the  second  Intelligence  the  result  of  the 
existence  of  the  first,  the  third  of  the  second  [and  so  on],  and  that 
the  spheres  are  the  necessary  result  of  the  existence  of  the  Intelhgences, 
and  so  forth,  in  the  well-known  order  which  you  learnt  from  passages 
dealing  with  it,  and  of  which  we  have  given  a  resume  in  this  part 
(ch.  iv.) — he  does  not  mean  that  the  one  thing  was  first  in  existence,  and 
then  the  second  came  as  the  necessary  result  of  the  first  ;  he    denies  that 


192  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

any  one  of  these  beings  has  had  a  beginning.  By  "  necessary  result "  he 
merely  refers  to  the  causal  relation ;  he  means  to  say  that  the  first  Intelli- 
gence is  the  cause  of  the  existence  of  the  second ;  the  second  of  the  third, 
and  so  on  to  the  last  of  the  Intelligences ;  and  the  same  is  also  the  case  as 
regards  the  spheres  and  the  materia  ■prima  ;  none  of  these  preceded  another, 
or  has  been  in  existence  without  the  existence  of  that  other.  We  say,  e.g., 
that  the  necessary  result  of  the  primary  qualities  are  roughness  [and]  smooth- 
ness, hardness  [and]  softness,  porosity  and  solidity  ;  and  no  person  doubts 
that  heat,  cold,  moisture,  and  dryness  are  the  causes  of  smoothness  and 
roughness,  of  hardness  and  softness,  porosity  and  solidity,  and  similar  quali- 
ties, and  that  the  latter  are  the  necessary  result  of  those  four  primary  qualities. 
And  yet  it  is  impossible  that  a  body  should  exist  with  the  primary  qualities 
without  the  secondary  ones  ;  for  the  relation  between  the  two  sets  of  qualities 
is  that  of  causality,  not  that  of  agent  and  its  product.  Just  in  the  same  way 
the  term  "  necessary  result "  is  used  by  Aristotle  in  reference  to  the  whole 
Universe,  when  he  says  that  one  portion  is  the  result  of  the  other,  and  con- 
tinues the  series  up  to  the  First  Cause  as  he  calls  it,  or  first  Intellect,  if  you 
prefer  this  term.  For  we  all  mean  the  same,  only  with  this  difference,  that 
according  to  Aristotle  everything  besides  that  Being  is  the  necessary  result 
of  the  latter,  as  I  have  already  mentioned  ;  whilst,  according  to  our  opinion, 
that  Being  created  the  whole  Universe  with  design  and  will,  so  that  the  Uni- 
verse which  had  not  been  in  existence  before,  has  by  His  will  come  into  exist- 
ence. I  will  now  begin  in  the  following  chapters  my  proofs  for  the  superiority 
of  our  theory,  that  of  Creatio  ex  nihilo. 

CHAPTER  XXII 

Aristotle  and  all  philosophers  assume  as  an  axiom  that  a  simple  element  can 
only  produce  one  simple  thing,  whilst  a  compound  can  produce  as  many 
things  as  it  contains  simple  elements ;  e.g.,  fire  combines  in  itself  two  pro- 
perties, heat  and  dryness ;  it  gives  heat  by  the  one  property,  and  produces 
dryness  by  the  other :  an  object  composed  of  matter  and  form  produces 
certain  things  on  account  of  its  matter,  and  others  on  account  of  its  form,  if 
[both  matter  and  form]  consist  of  several  elements.  In  accordance  with  this 
axiom,  Aristotle  holds  that  the  direct  emanation  from  God  must  be  one 
simple  Intelligence,  and  nothing  else. 

A  second  axiom  assumed  by  him  is  this :  Things  are  not  produced  by 
other  things  at  random  ;  there  must  be  some  relation  between  cause  and  effect. 
Thus  accidents  are  not  produced  by  accidents  promiscuously  ;  quality  cannot 
be  the  origin  of  quantity,  nor  quantity  that  of  quality  ;  a  form  cannot 
emanate  from  matter,  nor  matter  from  form. 

A  third  axiom  is  this  :  A  single  agent  that  acts  with  design  and  will,  and  not 
merely  by  the  force  of  the  laws  of  Nature,  can  produce  different  objects. 

A  fourth  axiom  is  as  follows :  An  object,  whose  several  elements  are  only 
connected  by  juxtaposition,  is  more  properly  a  compound  than  an  object 
whose  different  elements  have  entirely  combined  ;  e.g.,  bone,  flesh,  veins, 
or  nerves,  are  more  simple  than  the  hand  or  the  foot,  that  are  a  combination 
of  bone,  flesh,  veins,  and  nerves.  This  is  very  clear,  and  requires  no  further 
explanation. 


THEORY   OF   ARISTOTLE  193 

Having  premised  these  axioms,  I  ask  the  following  question  :  Ari5tf)tlc 
holds  that  the  first  Intelligence  is  the  cause  of  the  second,  the  second  ui  the 
third,  and  so  on,  till  the  thousandth,  if  we  assume  a  scries  of  that  number. 
Now  the  first  Intellect  is  undoubtedly  simple.  How  then  can  the  com- 
pound form  of  existing  things  come  from  such  an  Intellect  by  fixed  laws  of 
Nature,  as  Aristotle  assumes  ?  We  admit  all  he  said  concerning  the  Intelli- 
gences, that  the  further  they  are  away  from  the  first,  the  greater  is  the  variety 
of  their  compounds,  in  consequence  of  the  larger  number  of  the  objects 
comprehensible  by  the  Intelligences ;  but  even  after  admitting  this,  the 
question  remains.  By  what  law  of  Nature  did  the  spheres  emanate  from  the 
Intelligences  ?  What  relation  is  there  between  material  and  immaterial 
beings  ?  Suppose  we  admit  that  each  sphere  emanates  from  an  Intelligence 
of  the  form  mentioned  ;  that  the  Intelligence,  including,  as  it  were,  two 
elements,  in  so  far  as  it  comprehends  itself  and  another  thing,  produces  the 
next  Intelligence  by  the  one  element,  and  a  sphere  by  the  other ;  but  the  ques- 
tion would  then  be,  how  the  one  simple  element  could  produce  the  sphere,  that 
contains  two  substances  and  two  forms,  namely,  the  substance  and  the  form  of 
the  sphere,  and  also  the  substance  and  the  form  of  the  star  fixed  in  that  sphere. 
For,  according  to  the  laws  of  Nature,  the  compound  can  only  emanate  from 
a  compound.  There  must  therefore  be  one  element,  from  which  the  body 
of  the  sphere  emanates,  and  another  element,  from  which  the  body  of 
the  star  emanates.  This  would  be  necessary  even  if  the  substance  of  all 
stars  were  the  same  ;  but  it  is  possible  that  the  luminous  stars  have  not  the 
same  substance  as  the  non-luminous  stars ;  it  is  besides  well  known  that  each 
body  has  its  own  matter  and  its  own  form.  It  must  now  be  clear  that  this 
emanation  could  not  have  taken  place  by  the  force  of  the  laws  of  Nature,  as 
Aristotle  contends.  Nor  does  the  difference  of  the  motions  of  the  spheres 
follow  the  order  of  their  positions ;  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  said  that  this 
difference  is  the  result  of  certain  laws  of  Nature.  We  have  already  men- 
tioned this  (ch.  xix.). 

There  is  in  the  propAties  of  the  spheres  another  circumstance  that  is 
opposed  to  the  assumed  laws  of  Nature  ;  namely,  if  the  substance  of  all 
spheres  is  the  same,  why  does  it  not  occur  that  the  form  of  one  sphere  com- 
bines with  the  substance  of  another  sphere,  as  is  the  case  with  things  on 
earth,  simply  because  their  substance  is  fit  [for  such  changes]  ?  If  the 
substance  of  all  spheres  is  the  same,  if  it  is  not  assumed  that  each  of  them  has 
a  peculiar  substance,  and  if,  contrary  to  all  principles,  the  peculiar  motion 
of  each  sphere  is  no  evidence  for  the  special  character  of  its  substance, 
why  then  should  a  certain  form  constantly  remain  united  with 
a  certain  substance  ?  Again,  if  the  stars  have  all  one  substance,  by 
what  are  they  distinguished  from  each  other  ?  is  it  by  forms  ?  or  by  acci- 
dents ?  Whichever  be  the  case,  the  forms  or  the  accidents  would  inter- 
change, so  that  they  would  successively  unite  with  every  one  of  the  stars, 
so  long  as  their  substance  [being  the  same]  admits  the  combinations  [with 
every  one  of  the  forms  or  the  accidents].  This  shows  that  the  term  sub- 
stance, when  used  of  the  spheres  or  the  stars,  docs  not  mean  the  same  as  it 
signifies  when  used  of  the  substance  of  earthly  things,  but  is  applied  to  the 
two  synonymously.  It  further  shows  that  every  one  of  the  bodies  of  the 
spheres  has  its  own  peculiar  form  of  existence  different  from  that  of  all  other 


194  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

beings.  Why  then  is  circular  motion  common  to  all  spheres,  and  why  is  the 
fixed  position  of  the  stars  in  their  respective  spheres  common  to  all  stars  ? 
If  we,  however,  assume  design  and  determination  of  a  Creator,  in  accordance 
with  His  incomprehensible  wisdom,  all  these  difficulties  disappear.  They 
must  arise  when  we  consider  the  whole  Universe,  not  as  the  result  of  free 
will,  but  as  the  result  of  fixed  laws  of  Nature  :  a  theory  which,  on  the  one 
hand,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  existing  order  of  things,  and  does  not  offer 
for  it  a  sufficient  reason  or  argument ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  implies  many 
and  great  improbabilities.  For,  according  to  this  theory,  God,  whose  per- 
fection in  every  respect  is  recognised  by  all  thinking  persons,  is  in  such  a 
relation  to  the  Universe  that  He  cannot  change  anything  ;  if  He  wished  to 
make  the  wing  of  a  fly  longer,  or  to  reduce  the  number  of  the  legs  of  a  worm 
by  one.  He  could  not  accomplish  it.  According  to  Aristotle,  He  does  not 
try  such  a  thing,  and  it  is  wholly  impossible  for  Him  to  desire  any  change  in 
the  existing  order  of  things ;  if  He  could,  it  would  not  increase  His  perfec- 
tion ;  it  might,  on  the  contrary,  from  some  point  of  view,  diminish  it. 

Although  I  know  that  many  partial  critics  will  ascribe  my  opinion  con- 
cerning the  theory  of  Aristotle  to  insufficient  understanding,  or  to  inten- 
tional opposition,  I  will  not  refrain  from  stating  in  short  the  results  of  my 
researches,  however  poor  my  capacities  may  be.  I  hold  that  the  theory  of 
Aristotle  is  undoubtedly  correct  as  far  as  the  things  are  concerned  which 
exist  between  the  sphere  of  the  moon  and  the  centre  of  the  earth,.  Only  an 
ignorant  person  rejects  it,  or  a  person  with  preconceived  opinions  of  his  own, 
which  he  desires  to  maintain  and  to  defend,  and  which  lead  him  to  ignore 
clear  facts.  But  what  Aristotle  says  concerning  things  above  the  sphere  of 
the  moon  is,  with  few  exceptions,  mere  imagination  and  opinion  ;  to  a  still 
greater  extent  this  applies  to  his  system  of  Intelligences,  and  to  some  of  his 
metaphysical  views ;  they  include  great  improbabilities,  [promote]  ideas 
which  all  nations  consider  as  evidently  corrupt,  and  cause  views  to  spread 
wliich  cannot  be  proved. 

It  may  perhaps  be  asked  why  I  have  enumerated*all  the  doubts  which  can 
be  raised  against  the  theory  of  Aristotle  ;  whether  by  mere  doubts  a  theory 
can  be  overthrown,  or  its  opposite  established  ?  This  is  certainly  not  the 
case.  But  we  treat  this  philosopher  exactly  as  his  followers  tell  us  to  do. 
For  Alexander  stated  that  when  a  theory  cannot  be  established  by  proof, 
the  two  most  opposite  views  should  be  compared  as  to  the  doubts  enter- 
tained concerning  each  of  them,  and  that  view  which  admits  of  fewer  doubts 
should  be  accepted.  Alexander  further  says  that  this  rule  applies  to  all 
those  opinions  of  Aristotle  in  Metaphysics  for  which  he  offered  no  proof. 
For  those  that  followed  Aristotle  believed  that  his  opinions  are  far  less  subject 
to  doubt  than  any  other  opinion.  We  follow  the  same  rule.  Being  con- 
vinced that  the  question  whether  the  heavens  are  eternal  or  not  cannot  be 
decided  by  proof,  neither  in  the  affirmative  nor  in  the  negative,  we  have 
enumerated  the  objections  raised  to  either  view,  and  shown  how  the  theory 
of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  is  subject  to  stronger  objections,  and  is  more 
apt  to  corrupt  the  notions  concerning  God  [than  the  other].  Another 
argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  theory  of  the  Creation  was 
held  by  our  Father  Abraham,  and  by  our  Teacher  Moses. 

Having  mentioned  the  method  of  testing  the  two  theories  by  the  objections 


CREATION  AND  ETERNITY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE    iqS 

raised  as^ainst  them,  I  find  it  necessary  to  give  some  further  cxj  lanatiuii  oi 
the  subject. 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

In  comparing  the  objections  raised  against  one  theory  with  those  raised 
against  the  opposite  theory,  in  order  to  decide  in  favour  of  the  least  objec- 
tionable, we  must  not  consider  the  number  of  the  objections,  but  the  degree 
of  improbability  and  of  deviation  from  real  facts  [pointed  out  by  the  objec- 
tions] ;  for  one  objection  may  sometimes  have  more  weight  than  a  thousand 
others.  But  the  comparison  cannot  be  trustworthy  unless  the  two  theories 
be  considered  with  the  same  interest,  and  if  you  are  predisposed  in  favour  of 
one  of  them,  be  it  on  account  of  your  training  or  because  of  some  advantage, 
you  are  too  blind  to  see  the  truth.  For  that  which  can  be  demonstrated 
you  cannot  reject,  however  much  you  may  be  inclined  against  it ;  but  in 
questions  like  those  under  consideration  you  are  apt  to  dispute  [in  conse- 
quence of  your  inclination].  You  will,  however,  be  able  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion, as  far  as  necessary,  if  you  free  yourself  from  passions,  ignore  customs, 
and  follow  only  your  reason.  But  many  are  the  conditions  which  must  be 
fulfilled.  First  you  must  know  your  mental  capacities  and  your  natural 
talents ;  you  will  find  this  out  when  you  study  all  mathematical  sciences, 
and  are  well  acquainted  with  Logic.  Secondly,  you  must  have  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  Natural  Science,  that  you  may  be  able  to  understand  the  nature 
of  the  objections.  Thirdly,  you  must  be  morally  good.  For  if  a  person  is 
voluptuous  or  passionate,  and,  loosening  the  reins,  allows  his  anger  to  pass 
the  just  limits,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  he  is  so  from  nature  or  from 
habit,  he  will  blunder  and  stumble  in  his  way,  he  will  seek  the  theory  which 
is  in  accordance  with  his  inclinations.  I  mention  this  lest  you  be  deceived  ; 
for  a  person  might  some  day,  by  some  objection  which  he  raises,  shake  your 
belief  in  the  theory  of  the  Creation,  and  then  easily  mislead  you  ;  you  would 
then  adopt  the  theory  [of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe]  which  is  contrary 
to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  religion,  and  leads  to  "  speaking  words 
that  turn  away  from  God."  You  must  rather  have  suspicion  against  your 
own  reason,  and  accept  the  theory  taught  by  two  prophets  who  have  laid  the 
foundation  for  the  existing  order  in  the  religious  and  social  relations  of  man- 
kind. Only  demonstrative  proof  should  be  able  to  m.ake  you  abandon  the 
theory  of  the  Creation  ;   but  such  a  proof  does  not  exist  in  Nature. 

You  will  not  find  it  strange  that  I  introduce  into  this  discussion  historical 
matter  in  support  of  the  theory  of  the  Creation,  seeing  that  Aristotle,  the 
greatest  philosopher,  in  his  principal  works,  introduces  histories  m  support 
of  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  In  this  regard  we  may  justly 
quote  the  saying  :  "  Should  not  our  perfect  Law  be  as  good  as  thc.r 
gossip  ?  "  (B.  T.  Baba  batra,  115  b).  When  he  supports  his  view  by  quoting 
Sabean  stories,  why  should  we  not  support  our  view  by  that  which  Moses 
and  Abraham  said,  and  that  which  follows  from  their  words  ? 

I  have  before  promised  to  describe  in  a  separate  chapter  the  strong  objec- 
tions which  must  occur  to  him  who  thinks  that  human  wisdom  comprehends 
fully  the  nature  of  the  spheres  and  their  motions ;  that  these  arc  subject  to 
fixed  laws,  and  capable  of  being  comprehended  as  regards  order  and  relation. 
I  will  now  explain  this. 


196  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

You  know  of  Astronomy  as  much  as  you  have  studied  with  me,  and  learnt 
from  the  book  Almagest ;  we  had  not  sufficient  time  to  go  beyond  this. 
The  theory  that  [the  spheres]  move  regularly,  and  that  the  assumed  courses  of 
the  stars  are  in  harmony  with  observation,  depends,  as  you  are  aware,  on  two 
hypotheses  :  we  must  assume  either  epicycles,  or  excentric  spheres,  or  a  com- 
bination of  both.     Now  I  will  show  that  each  of  these  two  hypotheses  is 
irregular,  and  totally  contrary  to  the  results  of  Natural  Science.     Let  us 
first  consider  an  epicycle,  such  as  has  been  assumed  in  the  spheres  of  the 
moon  and  the  five  planets,  rotating  on  a  sphere,  but  not  round  the  centre  of 
the  sphere  that  carries  it.     This  arrangement  would  necessarily  produce  a 
revolving  motion  ;   the  epicycle  would  then  revolve,  and  entirely  change  its 
place ;    but  that  anything  in  the  spheres  should  change  its  place  is  exactly 
what  Aristotle  considers  impossible.     For  that  reason  Abu-bekr  ibn-Alzaig, 
in  an  astronomical  treatise  which  he  wrote,  rejects  the  existence  of  epicycles. 
Besides  this  impossibility,  he  mentions  others,  showing  that  the  theory  of 
epicycles  implies  other  absurd  notions.     I  vdll  here  explain  them  : — (i)  It 
is  absurd  to  assume  that  the  revolution  of  a  cycle  has  not  the  centre  of  the 
Universe  for  its  centre  ;  for  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  the  order  of  the 
Universe  that  there  are  only  three  kinds  of  motion — from  the  centre,  towards 
the  centre,  and  round  the  centre  ;  but  an  epicycle  does  not  move  away  from 
the  centre,  nor  towards  it,  nor  round  it.  (2)  Again,  according  to  what  Aris- 
totle explains  in  Natural  Science,  there  must  be  something  fixed  round  which 
the  motion  takes  place  ;  this  is  the  reason  why  the  earth  remains  stationary. 
But  the  epicycle  would  move  round  a  centre  which  is  not  stationary.    I  have 
heard  that  Abu-bekr  discovered  a  system  in  which  no  epicycles  occur  ;   but 
excentric  spheres  are  not  excluded  by  him.     I  have  not  heard  it  from  his 
pupils ;   and  even  if  it  be  correct  that  he  discovered  such  a  system,  he  has 
not  gained  much  by  it ;  for  excentricity  is  likewise  as  contrary  as  possible  to 
the  principles  laid  down  by  Aristotle.     For  it  seems  to  me  that  an  excentric 
sphere  does  not  move  round  the  centre  of  the  Universe,  but  round  an  ima- 
ginary point  distant  from  the  centre,  and  therefore  round  a  point  which  is 
not  fixed.      A  person  ignorant  of  astronomy  might  think  that  the  motion  of 
the  excentric  spheres  may  still  be  considered  as  taking  place  round  something 
fixed,  since  their  centre  is  apparently  within  the  sphere  of  the  moon.  I  would 
admit  this  if  the  centre  were  situated  in  the  region  of  fire  or  air,  although 
the  spheres  would  not  move  round  a  stable  point.     But  I  will  show  that  the 
amount  of  excentricity  has,  in  a  certain  way,  been  described  in  the  Almagest ; 
and  later  scholars  have  calculated  the  exact  amount  of  excentricity  in  terms 
of  radii  of  the  earth,  and  have  proved  the  result.     The  same  measure  has 
been  used  in  astronomy  in  describing  all  distances  and  magnitudes.     It  has 
thu   been  shown  that  the  point  round  which  the  sun  moves  lies  undoubtedly 
beyond  the  sphere  of  the  moon,  and  below  the  superficies  of  the  sphere  of 
Mercury.     The  centre  for  the  circuit  of  Mars,  that  is,  the  centre  of  the 
excentric  sphere  of  Mars,  is  beyond  the  sphere  of  Mercury,  and  below  the 
sphere  of  Venus.     The  centre  of  Jupiter  has  the  same  distance  ;   it  lies  be- 
tween the  sphere  of  Venus  and  that  of  Mercury,  whilst  the  centre  of  Saturn 
lies  between  the  spheres  of  Mars  and  Jupiter.     Now,  consider  how  impro- 
bable all  this  appears  according  to  the  laws  of  Natural  Science.     You  will 


CREATION  AND  ETERNITY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE    ujj 

find  it  out  when  you  consider  the  known  distances  and  mapiiitudcs  of  each 
sphere  and  each  star,  all  expressed  in  terms  of  the  radii  of  the  earth.  There 
is  a  uniform  measure  for  all,  and  the  excentricity  of  each  sphere  is  not  deter- 
mined by  units  proportionate  to  its  own  magnitude. 

It  is  still  more  improbable  and  more  objectionable  to  assume  that  there 
are  two  spheres,  the  one  within  the  other  ;  that  these  are  closely  joined  from 
all  sides,  and  have,  nevertheless,  different  centres.  For  in  this  case  the  smaller 
sphere  might  move  whilst  the  larger  be  at  rest ;  but  the  smaller  cannot  be  at 
rest  when  the  larger  moves,  and  must  move  with  the  larger  when  the  latter 
rotates  round  any  other  axis  than  that  which  passes  through  the  two  centres. 
Now  we  have  this  proposition  which  can  be  proved  ;  and,  further,  the 
established  theory  that  there  is  no  vacuum,  and  also  the  assumed  excentricity 
of  the  spheres ;  from  all  this  it  follows  that  in  every  two  spheres  the  motion 
of  the  upper  one  should  cause  the  lower  sphere  to  move  in  the  same  way, 
and  round  the  same  centre.  But  this  is  not  the  case ;  the  outer  and  the 
inner  spheres  do  not  move  in  the  same  way,  and  not  round  the  same  centre 
or  the  same  axis ;  each  of  them  has  its  peculiar  motion.  For  this  reason  it 
has  been  assumed  that  between  every  two  spheres  there  are  substances 
different  from  those  of  the  spheres.  It  may  be  very  much  doubted  whether 
this  is  the  case  ;  for  where  should  the  centres  of  these  intermediate  sub- 
stances be  placed  ?  have  these  substances  likewise  their  own  peculiar  mo- 
tion ?  Thabith  has  explained  the  above-mentioned  theory  in  one  of  his 
treatises,  and  proved  that  we  must  assume  a  substance  of  a  spherical  form 
intermediate  between  one  sphere  and  the  other.  All  this  is  part  of  that 
which  I  have  not  explained  to  you  when  you  studied  with  me,  for  I  was 
afraid  you  might  become  confused  and  would  not  understand  even  those 
things  which  I  wished  to  show  you.  But  as  to  the  inclination  and  the  devia- 
tion assumed  in  respect  to  the  latitude  of  the  paths  of  Venus  and  Mercury, 
I  have  already  clearly  shown  you  mva  voce  that  it  is  impossible  to  imagine 
material  beings  under  such  conditions.  You  have  seen  that  Ptolemy  has 
already  pointed  out  this  difficulty.  He  says  as  follows :  "  Let  no  one  think 
that  these  and  similar  principles  are  improbable.  If  any  one  considers  what 
we  have  here  expounded  in  the  same  light  as  he  considers  things  produced 
by  skill  and  subtle  work,  he  will  find  it  improbable ;  but  it  is  not  right  to 
compare  human  things  to  divine  things."  This  is,  as  you  know,  what  Ptol- 
emy says,  and  I  have  already  pointed  out  to  you  the  passages  by  which  you 
can  verify  all  I  said,  except  what  I  stated  about  the  position  of  the  centres  of 
the  excentric  spheres  ;  for  I  have  not  heard  that  any  one  has  paid  attention 
to  this  question.  But  you  will  understand  it  when  you  know  the  length  of 
the  diameter  of  each  sphere,  and  the  extent  of  its  excentricity  in  terms  of 
radii  of  the  earth,  according  to  the  facts  which  Kabici  has  established  in  his 
treatise  on  the  distances.  When  you  notice  these  distances  you  will  confirm 
my  words. 

Consider,  therefore,  how  many  difficulties  arise  if  we  accept  the  theory 
which  Aristotle  expounds  in  Physics.  For,  according  to  that  theory,  there 
are  no  epicycles,  and  no  excentric  spheres,  but  all  spheres  rotate  round  the 
centre  of  the  earth  !  How  then  can  the  different  courses  of  the  stars  be 
explained  ?  how  is  it  possible  to  assume  a  uniform  perfect  rotation  with  the 
phenomena  which  we  perceive,  except  by  admitting  one  of  the  two  hypo- 


198  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

theses  or  both  of  them  ?  The  difficulty  is  still  more  apparent  when  we  find 
that  admitting  what  Ptolemy  said  as  regards  the  epicycle  of  the  moon,  and 
its  inclination  towards  a  point  different  both  from  the  centre  of  the  Universe 
and  from  its  own  centre,  the  calculations  according  to  these  hypotheses  are 
perfectly  correct,  within  one  minute  ;  that  their  correctness  is  confirmed 
by  the  most  accurate  calculation  of  the  time,  duration,  and  extent  of  the 
eclipses,  which  is  always  based  on  these  hypotheses.  Furthermore,  how  can 
we  reconcile,  without  assuming  the  existence  of  epicycles,  the  apparent  re- 
trogression of  a  star  with  its  other  motions  ?  How  can  rotation  or  motion 
take  place  round  a  point  which  is  not  fixed  ?     These  are  real  difficulties. 

I  have  explained  to  you  already  viva  voce,  that  these  difficulties  do  not 
concern  the  astronomer  ;  for  he  does  not  profess  to  tell  us  the  existing  pro- 
perties of  the  spheres,  but  to  suggest,  whether  correctly  or  not,  a  theory  in 
which  the  motion  of  the  stars  is  circular  and  uniform,  and  yet  in  agreement 
with  our  observation.  You  know  that  Abu-bekr  al-Zaig,  in  his  treatise  on 
Physics,  expresses  a  doubt  whether  Aristotle  knew  the  excentricity  of  the 
sun  but  ignored  it,  and  only  discussed  the  effect  of  the  inclination, 
because  he  saw  that  the  effect  of  the  excentricity  was  identical  with 
that  of  the  inclination ;  or  whether  he  did  not  perceive  it.  The 
truth  is  that  he  did  not  notice  it  or  hear  of  it ;  the  science  was  not 
perfect  in  his  age.  If  he  had  heard  of  it,  he  would  have  strongly  opposed 
it ;  if  he  had  been  convinced  of  its  correctness,  he  would  have  been 
greatly  embarrassed  as  regards  all  that  he  said  on  the  question.  What  I 
said  before  (ch.  xxii.)  I  will  repeat  now,  namely,  that  the  theory  of  Aristotle, 
in  explaining  the  phenomena  in  the  sublunary  world,  is  in  accordance  with 
logical  inference  ;  here  we  know  the  causal  relation  between  one  phenomenon 
and  another  ;  we  see  how  far  science  can  investigate  them,  and  the  manage- 
ment of  nature  is  clear  and  intelligible.  But  of  the  things  in  the  heavens 
man  knows  nothing  except  a  few  mathematical  calculations,  and  you  see  how 
far  these  go.  I  say  in  the  words  of  the  poet,  "  The  heavens  are  the  Lord's, 
but  the  earth  He  hath  given  to  the  sons  of  man  "  (Ps.  cxv.  l6)  ;  that  is  to 
say,  God  alone  has  a  perfect  and  true  knowledge  of  the  heavens,  their  nature, 
their  essence,  their  form,  their  motions,  and  their  causes ;  but  He  gave  man 
power  to  know  the  things  which  are  under  the  heavens  ;  here  is  man's  world, 
here  is  his  home,  into  which  he  has  been  placed,  and  of  which  he  is  himself  a 
portion.  This  is  in  reality  the  truth.  For  the  facts  which  we  require  in 
proving  the  existence  of  heavenly  beings  are  withheld  from  us  ;  the  heavens 
are  too  far  from  us,  and  too  exalted  in  place  and  rank.  Man's  faculties  are 
too  deficient  to  comprehend  even  the  general  proof  the  heavens  contain  for 
the  existence  of  Him  who  sets  them  in  motion.  It  is  in  fact  ignorance  or  a 
kind  of  madness  to  weary  our  minds  with  finding  out  things  which  are  beyond 
our  reach,  without  having  the  means  of  approaching  them.  We  must  con- 
tent ourselves  with  that  which  is  within  our  reach,  and  that  which  cannot 
be  approached  by  logical  inference  let  us  leave  to  him  who  has  been  endowed 
with  that  great  and  divine  influence,  expressed  in  the  words :  "  Mouth  to 
mouth  do  I  speak  with  Him  "  (Num.  xii.  8). 

This  is  all  I  can  say  on  this  question  ;  another  person  may  perhaps  be  able 
to  establish  by  proof  what  appears  doubtful  to  me.  It  is  on  account  of  my 
great  love  of  truth  that  I  have  shown  my  embarrassment  in  these  matters, 


MAIMON  IDES'    THEORY  ,^ 

and  I  have  not  heard,  nor  do  I  know  that  any  of  tlicsc  theories  have  been 

establislied  by  proof. 

CHAPTER  XXV 

We  do  not  reject  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  because  certain  passages  in 
Scripture  confirm  the  Creation  ;  for  such  passages  are  not  more  numerous 
than  those  in  which  God  is  represented  as  a  corporeal  being  ;  nor  is  it  im- 
possible or  difficult  to  find  for  them  a  suitable  interpretation.  \Vc  might 
have  explained  them  in  the  same  manner  as  we  did  in  respect  to  the  Incor- 
poreality  of  God.  We  should  perhaps  have  had  an  easier  task  in  showing 
that  the  Scriptural  passages  referred  to  are  in  harmony  with  the  theory  of 
the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  if  we  accepted  the  latter,  than  we  had  in  ex- 
plaining the  anthropomorphisms  in  the  Bible  when  we  rejected  the  idea  that 
God  is  corporeal.  For  two  reasons,  however,  we  have  not  done  so,  and 
have  not  accepted  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  First,  the  Incorporcality 
of  God  has  been  demonstrated  by  proof ;  those  passages  in  the  Bible,  which 
in  their  literal  sense  contain  statements  that  can  be  refuted  by  proof,  must 
and  can  be  interpreted  otherwise.  But  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  has  not 
been  proved  ;  a  mere  argument  in  favour  of  a  certain  theory  is  not  sufficient 
reason  for  rejecting  the  literal  meaning  of  a  Biblical  text,  and  explaining  it 
figuratively,  when  the  opposite  theory  can  be  supported  by  an  equally  good 


argument. 


Secondly,  our  belief  in  the  Incorporcality  of  God  is  not  contrary  to  any 
of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  religion  ;  it  is  not  contrary  to  the  words 
of  any  prophet.  Only  ignorant  people  believe  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
teaching  of  Scripture  ;  but  we  have  shown  that  this  is  not  the  case  ;  on  the 
contrary,  Scripture  teaches  the  Incorporcality  of  God.  If  we  were  to  accept 
the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  as  taught  by  Aristotle,  that  ever>'thing  in  the 
Universe  is  the  result  of  fixed  laws,  that  Nature  does  not  change,  and  that 
there  is  nothing  supernatural,  we  should  necessarily  be  in  opposition  to  the 
foundation  of  our  religion,  we  should  disbelieve  all  miracles  and  signs,  and 
certainly  reject  all  hopes  and  fears  derived  from  Scripture,  unless  the  miracles 
are  also  explained  figuratively.  The  Allcgorists  amongst  the  Mohammedans 
have  done  this,  and  have  thereby  arrived  at  absurd  conclusions.  If,  how- 
ever, we  accepted  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  in  accordance  with  the  second 
of  the  theories  which  we  have  expounded  above  (ch.  xxiii.),  and  assumed,  with 
Plato,  that  the  heavens  are  likewise  transient,  we  should  not  be  in  opposition 
to  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  religion  ;  this  theorj'  would  not  imply  the 
rejection  of  miracles,  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  admit  them  as  possible. 
The  Scriptural  text  might  have  been  explained  accordingly,  and  many  ex- 
pressions might  have  been  found  in  the  Bible  and  in  other  writings  that  would 
confirm  and  support  this  theory.  But  there  is  no  necessity  for  this  expedient, 
so  long  as  the  theory  has  not  been  proved.  As  there  is  no  proof  sufficient  to 
convince  us,  this  theory  need  not  be  taken  into  consideration,  nor  the  other 
one  ;  we  take  the  text  of  the  Bible  literally,  and  say  that  it  teaches  us  a  truth 
which  we  cannot  prove  ;  and  the  miracles  arc  evidence  for  the  correctness 
of  our  view. 

Accepting  the  Creation,  we  find  that  miracles  are  possible,  that  Revelation 


200  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

is  possible,  and  that  every  difficulty  in  this  question  is  removed.  Wc  might 
be  asked,  Why  has  God  inspired  a  certain  person  and  not  another  ?  why  has 
He  revealed  the  Law  to  one  particular  nation,  and  at  one  particular  time  ?  why 
has  He  commanded  this,  and  forbidden  that  ?  why  has  He  shown  through  a 
prophet  certain  particular  miracles  ?  what  is  the  object  of  these  laws  ?  and 
why  has  He  not  made  the  commandments  and  the  prohibitions  part  of  our 
nature,  if  it  was  His  object  that  we  should  live  in  accordance  with  them  ? 
We  answer  to  all  these  questions  :  He  willed  it  so  ;  or,  His  wisdom  decided 
so.  Just  as  He  created  the  world  according  to  His  will,  at  a  certain  time,  in 
a  certain  form,  and  as  we  do  not  understand  why  His  will  or  His  wisdom 
decided  upon  that  peculiar  form,  and  upon  that  peculiar  time,  so  we  do  not 
know  why  His  will  or  wisdom  determined  any  of  the  things  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  questions.  But  if  we  assume  that  the  Universe  has  the  present 
form  as  the  result  of  fixed  laws,  there  is  occasion  for  the  above  questions  ;  and 
these  could  only  be  answered  in  an  objectionable  way,  implying  denial  and 
rejection  of  the  Biblical  texts,  the  correctness  of  which  no  intelligent  person 
doubts.  Owing  to  the  absence  of  all  proof,  we  reject  the  theory  of  the 
Eternity  of  the  Universe  ;  and  it  is  for  this  very  reason  that  the  noblest  minds 
spent  and  will  spend  their  days  in  research.  For  if  the  Creation  had  been 
demonstrated  by  proof,  even  if  only  according  to  the  Platonic  hypothesis, 
all  arguments  of  the  philosophers  against  us  would  be  of  no  avail.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  Aristotle  had  a  proof  for  his  theory,  the  whole  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture would  be  rejected,  and  we  should  be  forced  to  other  opinions.  I  have 
thus  shown  that  all  depends  on  this  question.     Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XXVI 

In  the  famous  chapters  known  as  the  Chapters  of  Rabbi  Eliezer,  I  find  R. 
Eliezer  the  Great  saying  something  more  extraordinary  than  I  have  ever  seen 
in  the  utterances  of  any  believer  in  the  Law  of  Moses.  I  mean  the  following 
passage  :  "  Whence  were  the  heavens  created  ?  He  took  part  of  the  light 
of  His  garment,  stretched  it  like  a  cloth,  and  thus  the  heavens  were  extending 
continually,  as  it  is  said  :  He  covereth  Himself  with  light  as  with  a  garment, 
He  stretcheth  the  heavens  like  a  curtain  "  (Ps.  civ.  2).  "  Whence  was  the 
earth  created  ?  He  took  of  the  snow  under  the  throne  of  glory,  and  threw 
it ;  according  to  the  words  :  He  saith  to  the  snow.  Be  thou  earth  "  (Job 
xxxvii.  6).  These  are  the  words  given  there ;  and  I,  in  my  surprise,  ask, 
What  was  the  belief  of  this  sage  f  did  he  think  that  nothing  can  be  pro- 
duced from  nothing,  and  that  a  substance  must  have  existed  of  which 
the  things  were  formed  ?  and  did  he  for  this  reason  ask  whence  were  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  created  ?  What  has  he  gained  by  the  answer  ?  We 
might  ask  him,  Whence  was  the  light  of  His  garment  created  ?  or  the  snow 
under  the  throne  of  His  glory  ?  or  the  throne  of  glory  itself  ?  If  the  terms 
"  the  light  of  His  garment  "  and  "  the  throne  of  glory  "  mean  something 
eternal,  they  must  be  rejected  ;  the  words  would  imply  an  admission  of  the 
Eternity  of  the  Universe,  though  only  in  the  form  taught  by  Plato.  The 
creation  of  the  throne  of  glory  is  mentioned  by  our  Sages,  though  in  a  strange 
way  ;  for  they  say  that  it  has  been  created  before  the  creation  of  the  Universe. 
Scripture,  however,  does  not  mention  the  creation  of  the  throne,  except  in 


DESTRUCTION    OF    THE    VNI\  ERSE  201 

the  words  of  David,  "  The  Lord  hath  established  his  throne  in  the  heavens  " 
(Ps.  ciii.  19),  which  words  admit  of  figurative  inicrpr».-lation  ;  but  the  eter- 
nity of  the  throne  is  distinctly  described,  "  Thou,  O  Lord,  dwcUcst  for  ever, 
thy  throne  for  ever  and  ever  "  (Lam.  v.  19).  Now,  if  R.  Eliczcr  had  be- 
lieved that  the  throne  was  eternal,  so  that  the  word  "  throne  "  expressed  an 
attribute  of  God,  and  not  something  created,  how  could  anything  be  pro- 
duced of  a  mere  attribute  ?  Stranger  still  is  his  expression  "  of  the  light  of 
His  garment." 

In  short,  it  is  a  passage  that  greatly  confuses  the  notions  of  all  intelligent 
and  religious  persons.  I  am  unable  to  explain  it  sufficiently.  I  quoted  it 
in  order  that  you  may  not  be  misled  by  it.  One  important  thing  R.  Eliezer 
taught  us  here,  that  the  substance  of  the  heavens  is  diflPcrent  from  tliat  of  the 
earth  ;  that  there  are  two  diflFerent  substances  :  the  one  is  described  as 
belonging  to  God,  being  the  light  of  His  garment,  on  account  of  its  super- 
iority ;  and  the  other,  the  earthly  substance,  which  is  distant  from  His 
splendour  and  light,  as  being  the  snow  under  the  throne  of  His  glory.  This 
led  me  to  explain  the  words,  "  And  under  his  feet  as  the  work  of  the  white- 
ness of  the  sapphire  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  10),  as  expressing  that  the  nobles  of  the 
children  of  Israel  comprehended  in  a  prophetical  vision  the  nature  of  the 
earthly  materia  prima.  For,  according  to  Onkelos,  the  pronoun  in  the 
phrase,  "  His  feet,"  refers  to  "  throne,"  as  I  have  shown  ;  this  indicates  that 
the  whiteness  under  the  throne  signifies  the  earthly  substance.  R.  Eliczcr 
has  thus  repeated  the  same  idea,  and  told  us  that  there  are  two  substances— 
a  higher  one,  and  a  lower  one  ;  and  that  there  is  not  one  substance  common 
to  ail  things.  This  is  an  important  subject,  and  we  must  not  think  light  of 
the  opinion  which  the  wisest  men  in  Israel  have  held  on  this  point.  It  con- 
cerns an  important  point  in  explaining  the  existence  of  the  Universe,  and 
one  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Law.  In  Bereshit  Rabba  (chap,  xii.)  the  follow- 
ing passage  occurs :  "  R.  Eliezer  says,  The  things  in  the  heavens  have  been 
created  of  the  heavens,  the  things  on  earth  of  the  earth."  Consider  how 
ingeniously  this  sage  stated  that  all  things  on  earth  have  one  common  sub- 
stance ;  the  heavens  and  the  things  in  them  have  one  substance,  different 
from  the  first.  He  also  explains  in  the  Chapters  [of  R.  Eliezer],  in  addition 
to  the  preceding  things,  the  superiority  of  the  heavenly  substance,  and  its 
proximity  to  God ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  inferiority  of  the  earthly 
substance  and  its  position.     Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XXVII 

We  have  already  stated  that  the  belief  in  the  Creation  is  a  fundamcnt.il  prin- 
ciple of  our  religion  ;  but  we  do  not  consider  it  a  principle  of  our  fauh  that 
the  Universe  will  again  be  reduced  to  nothing.  It  is  not  contrary  to  the 
tenets  of  our  religion  to  assume  that  the  Universe  will  continue  to  exist  for 
ever.  It  might  be  objected  that  everything  produced  is  subject  to  destruc- 
tion, as  has  been  shown  ;  consequently  the  Universe,  having  had  a  beginning, 
must  come  to  an  end.  This  axiom  cannot  be  applied  according  to  our  views. 
We  do  not  hold  that  the  Universe  came  into  existence,  like  all  things  in 
Nature,  as  the  result  of  the  laws  of  Nature.  For  whatever  owes  its  existence 
to  the  action  of  physical  laws  is,  according  to  the  same  laws,  subject  to  de- 


202  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

struction  :  the  same  law  which  caused  the  existence  of  a  thing  after  a  period 
of  non-existence,  is  also  the  cause  that  the  thing  is  not  permanent ;  since 
the  previous  non-existence  proves  that  the  nature  of  that  thing  does  not 
necessitate  its  permanent  existence.  According  to  our  theory,  taught  in 
Scripture,  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  things  depends  solely  on  the 
will  of  God  and  not  on  fixed  laws,  and,  therefore,  it  does  not  follow  that  God 
must  destroy  the  Universe  after  having  created  it  from  nothing.  It  depends 
on  His  will.  He  may,  according  to  His  desire,  or  according  to  the  decree  of 
His  wisdom,  either  destroy  it,  or  allow  it  to  exist,  and  it  is  therefore  possible 
that  He  will  preserve  the  Universe  for  ever,  and  let  it  exist  permanently  as 
He  Himself  exists.  It  is  well  known  that  our  Sages  never  said  that  the  throne 
of  glorv  vvill  perish,  although  they  assumed  that  it  has  been  created.  No 
prophet  or  sage  ever  maintained  that  the  throne  of  glory  will  be  destroyed 
or  annihilated  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  Scriptural  passages  speak  of  its 
permanent  existence.  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  souls  of  the  pious  have 
been  created,  and  at  the  same  time  we  believe  that  they  are  immortal. 
Some  hold,  in  accordance  with  the  literal  meaning  of  the  Midrashim,  that 
the  bodies  of  the  pious  will  also  enjoy  everlasting  happiness.  Their  notion 
is  like  the  well-known  belief  of  certain  people,  that  there  are  bodily  enjoy- 
ments in  Paradise.  In  short,  reasoning  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  de- 
struction of  the  Universe  is  not  a  certain  fact.  There  remains  only  the 
question  as  to  what  the  prophets  and  our  Sages  say  on  this  point ;  whether 
they  affirm  that  the  world  will  certainly  come  to  an  end,  or  not.  Most 
people  amongst  us  believe  that  such  statements  have  been  made,  and  that 
the  world  will  at  one  time  be  destroyed.  I  will  show  you  that  this  is  not  the 
case  ;  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  many  passages  in  the  Bible  speak  of  the 
permanent  existence  of  the  Universe.  Those  passages  which,  in  the  literal 
sense,  would  indicate  the  destruction  of  the  Universe,  are  undoubtedly  to 
be  understood  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  will  be  shown.  If,  however,  those 
who  follow  the  literal  sense  of  the  Scriptural  texts  reject  our  view,  and  assume 
that  the  ultimate  certain  destruction  of  the  Universe  is  part  of  their  faith, 
they  are  at  liberty  to  do  so.  But  we  must  tell  them  that  the  belief  in  the 
destruction  is  not  necessarily  implied  in  the  belief  in  the  Creation ;  they 
believe  it  because  they  trust  the  writer,  who  used  a  figurative  expression, 
which  they  take  literally.     Their  faith,  however,  does  not  suffer  by  it. 

CHAPTER  XXVIII 

Many  of  our  coreligionists  thought  that  King  Solomon  believed  in  the 
Eternity  of  the  Universe.  This  is  very  strange.  How  can  we  suppose  that 
any  one  that  adheres  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  our  Teacher,  should  accept  that 
theory  ?  if  we  were  to  assume  that  Solomon  has  on  this  point,  God  forbid, 
deviated  from  the  Law  of  Moses,  the  question  would  be  asked,  Why  did  most 
of  the  Prophets  and  of  the  Sages  accept  it  of  him  ?  Why  have  they  not 
opposed  him,  or  blamed  him  for  holding  that  opinion,  as  he  has  been  blamed 
for  having  married  strange  women,  and  for  other  things  ?  The  reason  why 
this  has  been  imputed  to  him  is  to  be  found  in  the  following  passage  :  "  They 
desired  to  suppress  the  book  Koheleth,  because  its  words  incline  towards 
scepticism."     It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  certain  passages  in  this  book  in- 


DESTRUCTION    OF    THE    UNIVERSE  20: 

elude,  when  taken  literally,  opinions  different  from  those  taught  in  the  Law, 
and  they  must  therefore  be  explained  figuratively.       But  the  theory  of  the 
Eternity  of  the  Universe  is  not  among  tliosc  opinions,  the  book  docs  iioi  even 
contain  any  passage  that  implies  this  theory  ;    much  less  a  passage  in  which 
it  is  clearly  set  forth.     There  are,  however,  in  the  book,  some  passages  which 
imply  the  indestructibility  of  the  Universe,  a  doctrine  that  is  true  ;  and  from 
the  fact  that  the  indestructibility  of  the  Universe  is  taught  in  this  book,  some 
persons  wrongly  inferred  that  the  author  believed  in  the  Eternity  of  the 
Universe.     The  following  are  the  words  that  refer  to  the  indestructibility 
of  the  Universe  :   "  And  the  earth  remaineth  for  ever."     And  those  who  do 
not  agree  with  me  as  regards  the  above  distinction  [between  the  indestructi- 
bility and  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe],  are  compelled  to  explain  the  term 
le-'olam  (lit.,  "  for  ever  "),  to  mean  "  the  time  fixed  for  the  existence  of  the 
earth."     Similarly  they  explain  the  words  of  God,  "  Yet  all  the  days  of  the 
earth  "  (Gen.  viii.  22)  to  signify  the  days  fixed  for  its  existence.     But  I  wonder 
how  they  would  explain  the  words  of  David  :   "  He  laid  the  foundations  of 
the  earth,  th-at  it  should  not  be  moved  for  ever  "  (Ps.  civ.  5).     If  they  main- 
tain here  also  that  the  term  le-'olarn  va-'ed  (lit.  "  for  ever  ")  docs  not  imply 
perpetuity,  they  must  come  to  the  conclusion  that  God  exists  only  for  a 
fixed  period,  since  the  same  term  is  employed  in  describing  the  perpetuity  of 
God,  "  The  Lord  will  reign  (k-'olam)  for  ever  "  (Exod.  xv.  18,  or  Ps.  x.  16). 
We  must,  however,  bear  in  mind  that  'olam  only  signifies  perpetuity  when 
it  is  combined  with  'ad  ;   it  makes  no  difference  whether  'ad  follows,  as  in 
*olam  va-'ed,  or  whether  it  precedes,  as  in  'ad  'olam.     The  words  of  Solomon 
which  only  contain  the  word  le-'olam,  have  therefore  less  force  than  the  words 
of  David,  who  uses  the  term  'olamva-'ed.     David  has  also  in  other  passages 
clearly  spoken  of  the  incorruptibility  of  the  heavens,  the  perpetuity  and 
immutability  of  their  laws,  and  of  all  the  heavenly  beings.     He  says,  "  Praise 
ye  the  Lord  from  the  heavens,  etc.     For  He  commanded,  and  they  were 
created.     He  hath  also  stablished  them  for  ever  and  ever  ;   he  hath  made  a 
decree  which  shall  not  pass  "  (Ps.  cxlviii.  1-6)  ;  that  is  to  say,  there  will  never 
be  a  change  in  the  decrees  which  God  made,  or  in  the  sources  of  the  pro- 
perties of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  which  the  Psalmist  has  mentioned 
before.     But  he  distinctly  states  that  they  have  been  created.     For  he  says, 
"  He  hath  commanded,  and  they  were  created."     Jeremiah  (xxxi.  35)  like- 
wise says,  "  He  giveth  the  sun  for  a  light  by  day,  and  the  ordinances  of  the 
moon  and  of  the  stars  for  a  light  by  night,"  etc.     "  If  these  ordinances  depart 
from  before  me,  saith  the  Lord,  then  the  seed  of  Israel  also  shaU  cease  from 
being  a  nation  before  me  for  ever."     He  thus  declares,  that  these  decrees 
will  never  be  removed,  although  they  had  a  beginning.     W'e  therefore  find 
this  idea,  when  we  search  for  it,  expressed  not  only  by  Solomon  but  also  hj 
others.     Solomon  himself  has  stated  that  these  works  of  God,  the  Universe, 
and  aU  that  is  contained  in  it,  remain  with  their  properties  for  ever,  although 
they  have  been  created.     For  he  says,  "  Whatsoever  God  docth,  it^  shall  be 
for  ever  ;  nothing  can  be  put  to  it,  nor  anything  taken  away  from  it "  (Efcj". 
iii    14).     He  declares  in  these  words  that  the  world  has  been  created  by  God 
and  remains  for  ever.     He  adds  the  reason  for  it  by  saying,  "  Nothing  can 
be  put  to  it,  nor  anything  taken  from  it ;  "  for  this  is  the  reason  for  the  per- 
petuity, as  if  he  meant  to  say  that  things  are  changed  in  order  to  supply  tliat 


204  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

which  is  wanting,  or  in  order  to  take  away  what  is  superfluous.  The  works 
of  God  being  most  perfect,  admitting  no  addition  or  deduction,  must  remain 
the  same  for  ever.  It  is  impossible  that  anything  should  exist  that  could 
cause  a  change  in  them.  In  the  conclusion  of  the  verse,  Solomon,  as  it  were 
describes  the  purpose  of  exceptions  from  the  laws  of  Nature,  or  an  excuse  for 
changes  in  them,  when  he  says,  "  And  God  doeth  it  (viz..  He  performs  mir- 
acles) that  men  should  fear  before  him."  The  words  which  follow,  "  That 
which  hath  been  is  now  ;  and  that  which  is  to  be  hath  already  been,  and  God 
seeketh  that  which  is  pursued,"  contain  the  idea  that  God  desires  the  per- 
petuity and  continuity  of  the  Universe.  The  fact  that  the  works  of  God 
are  perfect,  admitting  of  no  addition  or  diminution,  has  already  been  men- 
tioned by  Moses,  the  wisest  of  all  men,  in  the  words :  "  The  rock,  His  work 
is  perfect "  (Deut.  xxxii.  14).  All  His  works  or  creations  are  most  perfect, 
containing  no  defect  whatever,  nothing  superfluous,  nor  anything  unneces- 
sary. Also  whatever  God  decrees  for  those  created  things,  and  whatever 
He  effects  through  them,  is  perfectly  just,  and  is  the  result  of  His  wisdom,  as  will 
be  explained  in  some  chapters  of  this  treatise. 

CHAPTER  XXIX 

If  we  hear  a  person  speaking  whose  language  we  do  not  understand,  we  un- 
doubtedly know  that  he  speaks,  but  do  not  know  what  his  words  mean  ;  it 
may  even  happen  that  we  hear  some  words  which  mean  one  thing  in  the 
tongue  of  the  speaker,  and  exactly  the  reverse  in  our  language,  and  taking 
the  words  in  the  sense  which  they  have  in  our  language,  we  imagine  that  the 
speaker  employed  them  in  that  sense.  Suppose,  e.g.,  an  Arab  hears  of  a 
Hebrew  the  word  abah,  he  thinks  that  the  Hebrew  relates  how  a  man  de- 
spised and  refused  a  certain  thing,  whilst  the  Hebrew  in  reality  says  that  the 
man  was  pleased  and  satisfied  with  it.  The  very  same  thing  happens  to  the 
ordinary  reader  of  the  Prophets ;  some  of  their  words  he  does  not  understand 
at  all,  like  those  to  whom  the  prophet  says  (Isa.  xxix.  ll),  "  the  vision  of  all 
is  become  unto  you  as  the  words  of  a  book  that  is  sealed  "  ;  in  other  passages 
he  finds  the  opposite  or  the  reverse  of  what  the  prophet  meant ;  to  this  case 
reference  is  made  in  the  words,  "  Ye  have  perverted  the  words  of  the  living 
God  "  (Jer.  xxiii.  36).  Besides,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  every  prophet 
has  his  own  peculiar  diction,  which  is,  as  it  were,  his  language,  and  it  is  in  that 
language  that  the  prophecy  addressed  to  him  is  communicated  to  those  who 
understand  it.  After  this  preliminary  remark  you  will  understand  the  meta- 
phor frequently  employed  by  Isaiah,  and  less  frequently  by  other  prophets, 
when  they  describe  the  ruin  of  a  kingdom  or  the  destruction  of  a  great  nation 
in  phrases  like  the  following  : — "  The  stars  have  fallen,"  "  The  heavens  are 
overthrown,"  "  The  sun  is  darkened,"  "  The  earth  is  waste,  and  trembles," 
and  similar  metaphors.  The  Arabs  likewise  say  of  a  person  who  has  met 
with  a  serious  accident,  "  His  heavens,  together  with  his  earth,  have  been 
covered  "  ;  and  when  they  speak  of  the  approach  of  a  nation's  prosperity, 
they  say,  "  The  light  of  the  sun  and  moon  has  increased,"  "  A  new  heaven 
and  a  new  earth  has  been  created,"  or  they  use  similar  phrases.  So  also  the 
prophets,  in  referring  to  the  ruin  of  a  person,  of  a  nation,  or  of  a  country, 
describe  it  as  the  result  of  God's  great  anger  and  wrath,  whilst  the  prosperity 


ON    THE   LANGUAGE   OF    THE    PROPHETS.       ^05 

of  a  nation  Is  the  result  of  God's  pleasure  and  satisfaction.  In  the  former 
case  the  prophets  employ  such  phrases  as  "  He  came  foriii,"  "  came  dcnvn," 
"  roared,"  "  thundered,"  or  "  caused  his  voice  to  be  heard  "  ;  also  "  He 
commanded,"  "  said,"  "  did,"  "  made,"  and  the  like,  as  will  be  shown. 
Sometimes  the  prophets  use  the  term  "  mankind  "  instead  of  "  the  people 
of  a  certain  place,"  whose  destruction  they  predict ;  e.g.,  Isaiah  speaking  of 
the  destruction  of  Israel  says,  "  And  the  Lord  will  remove  man  far  away  " 
(Isa.  vi.  12).  So  also  Zcphaniah  (i.  3,  4),  "  And  I  will  cut  off  man  from  off  the 
earth.  I  will  also  stretch  out  mine  hand  upon  Judah."  Note  this  likewise. 
Having  spoken  of  the  language  of  the  prophets  in  general,  I  will  now  verify 
and  prove  my  statement.  When  Isaiah  received  the  divine  mission  to  pro- 
phesy the  destruction  of  the  Babylonian  empire,  the  death  of  Sennacherib 
and  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  rose  after  the  overthrow  of  Sennacherib, 
he  commences  in  the  following  manner  to  describe  their  f.ill  and  the  end  of 
their  dominion,  their  defeat,  and  such  evils  as  are  endured  by  all  who  are 
vanquished  and  compelled  to  flee  before  the  victorious  sword  [of  the  enemy]  : 
"  For  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  the  constellations  thereof,  shall  not  give  their 
light :  the  sun  is  darkened  in  his  going  forth,  and  the  moon  shall  not  cause 
her  light  to  shine  "  (xiii.  10)  ;  again,  "  Therefore  I  will  shake  the  heavens, 
and  the  earth  shall  remove  out  of  her  place,  in  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  and  in  the  day  of  his  fierce  anger  "  (xiii.  13).  I  do  not  think  that  any 
person  is  so  foolish  and  blind,  and  so  much  in  favour  of  the  literal  sense  of 
figurative  and  oratorical  phrases,  as  to  assume  that  at  the  fall  of  the  Baby- 
lonian kingdom  a  change  took  place  in  the  nature  of  the  stars  of  heaven,  or 
in  the  light  of  the  sun  and  moon,  or  that  the  earth  moved  away  from  its 
centre.  For  all  this  is  merely  the  description  of  a  country  that  has  been 
defeated  ;  the  inhabitants  undoubtedly  find  all  light  dark,  and  all  sweet 
things  bitter  :  the  whole  earth  appears  too  narrow  for  them,  and  the  heavens 
are  changed  in  their  eyes.  He  speaks  in  a  similar  manner  when  he  de- 
scribes the  poverty  and  humiliation  of  the  people  of  Israel,  their  captivity 
and  their  defeat,  the  continuous  misfortunes  caused  by  the  wicked  Senna- 
cherib when  he  ruled  over  all  the  fortified  places  of  Judah,  or  the  loss  of  the 
entire  land  of  Israel  when  it  came  into  the  possession  of  Sennacherib.  He 
says  (xxiv.  17)  :  "  Fear,  and  the  pit,  and  the  snare,  are  upon  thee,  O  inhabi- 
tant of  the  earth.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  he  who  flecth  from  the 
noise  of  the  fear  shall  fall  into  the  pit ;  and  he  that  cometh  out  of  the  midst 
of  the  pit  shall  be  taken  in  the  snare  :  for  the  windows  from  on  high  arc  open, 
and  the  foundations  of  the  earth  do  shake.  The  earth  is  utterly  broken  down, 
the  earth  is  clean  dissolved,  the  earth  is  moved  exceedingly.  The  earth  shall 
reel  to  and  fro  like  a  drunkard."  At  the  end  of  the  same  prophecy,  when 
Isaiah  describes  how  God  will  punish  Sennacherib,  destroy  his  mighty 
empire,  and  reduce  him  to  disgrace,  he  uses  the  following  figure  (xiiv.  23)  : 
"  Then  the  moon  shall  be  confounded,  and  the  sun  ashamed,  when  the  Lord 
of  hosts  shall  reign,"  etc.  This  verse  is  beautifully  explained  by  Jonathan, 
the  son  of  Uzziel ;  he  says  that  when  Sennacherib  will  meet  with  his  fate 
because  of  Jerusalem,  the  idolaters  wll  understand  that  this  is  the  work  of 
God  ;  they  will  faint  and  be  confounded.  He  therefore  translates  the  verse 
thus  :  "  Those  who  worship  the  moon  will  be  ashamed,  and  those  who  bow 
down  to  the  sun  will  be  humbled,  when  the  kingdom  of  God  shaU  reveal 


2o6       ,  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

itself,"  etc.     The  prophet  then  pictures  the  peace  of  the  children  of  Israel 
after  the  death  of  Sennacherib,  the  fertility  and  the  cultivation  of  their  land, 
and  the  increasing  power  of  their  kingdom  through  Hezekiah.     He  employs 
here  the  figure  of  the  increase  of  the  liglit  of  the  sun  and  moon.     When 
speaking  of  the  defeated,  he  says  that  for  them  the  light  of  the  sun  and  moon 
will  be  diminished  and  darkened  ;    in  the  same  sense  their  light  is  said  to 
increase  for  the  victorious.       We  can  frequently  notice  the  correctness  of  this 
figure  of  speech.     When  great  troubles  befall  us,  our  eyes  become  dim,  and  we 
cannot  see  clearly  because  the  spiritiis  visus  is  made  turbid  by  the  prevailing 
vapours,  and  is  weakened  and  diminished  by  great  anxiety  and  straits  of  the 
soul ;   whilst  in  a  state  of  gladness  and  comfort  of  the  soul  the  spiritus  visus 
becomes  clear,  and  man  feels  as  if  the  light  had  increased.     Thus  the  good 
tidings  that  the  people  shall  dwell  in  Zion,  and  in  Jerusalem,  and  shall  weep 
no  more,  etc.,  conclude  in  the  following  manner  :    "  Moreover,  the  light  of 
the  moon  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  the  light  of  the  sun  shall  be 
sevenfold,  as  the  light  of  seven  days,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  bindeth  up  the 
breaches  of  his  people,  and  healeth  the  stroke  of  their  wound  "  (Isa.  xxx.  19, 
26)  ;   that  is  to  say,  when  God  will  raise  them  up  again  after  they  had  fallen 
through  the  wicked  Sennacherib.     The  phrase  "  as  the  light  of  seven  days  " 
signifies,  according  to  the  commentators,  "  very  great  light  "  :    for  in  this 
same  sense  the  number  "  seven  "  is  frequently  used  in  Hebrew.     I  think  that 
reference  is  made  by  this  phrase  to  the  seven  days  of  the  dedication  of  the 
temple  in  the  reign  of  Solomon  ;  for  there  was  never  a  nation  so  great,  pros- 
perous, and  happy  in  every  respect,  as  Israel  was  at  that  time,  and  therefore 
the  prophet  says,  that  Israel's  greatness  and  happiness  will  be  the  same  as  it 
was  in  those  seven  days.     Speaking  of  wicked  Edom,  Israel's  oppressor,  Isaiah 
says :  "  Their  slain  also  shall  be  cast  out,  and  their  stink  shall  come  up  out  of 
their  carcases,  and  the  mountains  shall  be  melted  with  their  blood.     And 
all  the  host  of  heaven  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  heavens  shall  be  rolled  to- 
gether as  a  scroll :  and  all  their  host  shall  fall  down,  as  a  leaf  falleth  off  from 
the  vine,  and  as  a  fig  falleth  from  the  fig-tree.     For  my  sword  shall  be  bathed 
in  heaven  ;   behold,  I  shall  come  down  upon  Idumea,  and  upon  the  people 
of  my  curse,  to  judgment,"  etc.  (Isa.  xxxiv.  3-5).     Will  any  person  who  has 
eyes  to  see  find  in  these  verses  any  expression  that  is  obscure,  or  that  might 
lead  him  to  think  that  they  contain  an  account  of  what  will  befall  the  hea- 
vens ?     or  anything  but  a  figurative  description  of  the  ruin  of  the  Edomites, 
the  withdrawal  of  God's  protection  from  them,  their  decline,  and  the  sudden 
and  rapid  fall  of  their  nobles  ?     The  prophet  means  to  say  that  the  indivi- 
duals, who  were  like  stars  as  regards  their  permanent,  high,  and  undisturbed 
position,  will  quickly  come  down,  as  a  leaf  falleth  from  the  vine,  and  as  a 
fig  falling  from  the  fig-tree.     This  is  self-evident ;    and  there  would  be  no 
need  to  mention  it,  much  less  to  speak  on  it  at  length,  had  it  not  become 
necessary,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  common  people,  and  even  persons  who 
are  considered  as  distinguished  scholars,  quote  this  passage  without  regarding 
its  context  or  its  purpose,  [in  support  of  their  view  of  the  future  destruction 
of  the  heavens].     They  believe  that  Scripture  describes  here  what  will,  in 
future,  happen  to  the  heavens,  in  the  same  manner  as  it  informs  us  how  the 
heavens  have  come  into  existence.     Again,  when  Isaiah  told  the  Israelites — 
what  afterwards  became  a  well-known  fact — tliat   Sennacherib,   with  his 


ON    THE    LANGUAGE   OF    THE    PROPHETS       207 

allied  nations  and  kings,  would  perish,  and  that  the  Israelites  would  be  helped 
by  God  alone,  he  employed  figurative  language,  and  said  :  "  Sec  how  the 
heavens  decay  and  the  earth  withers  away,  and  all  beings  on  the  earth  die, 
and  you  are  saved  "  ;  that  is  to  say,  those  who  have  filled  the  earth,  and  have 
been  considered,  to  use  an  hyperbole,  as  permanent  and  stable  as  the  heavens, 
will  quickly  perish  and  disappear  like  smoke  ;  and  their  famous  power,  that 
has  been  as  stable  as  the  earth,  will  be  destroyed  like  a  garment.  The 
passage  to  which  I  refer  begins :  "  For  the  Lord  hath  comforted  Zinn  ;  He 
hath  comforted  all  her  waste  places,"  etc.  "  Hearken  unto  me,  my  people," 
etc.  "  My  righteousness  is  near  :  my  salvation  is  gone  forth,"  etc.  It  con- 
tinues thus  :  "  Lift  up  your  eyes  to  the  heavens,  and  look  upon  the  earth 
beneath  ;  for  the  heavens  shall  vanish  like  smoke,  and  the  earth  shall  wax  old 
like  a  garment,  and  they  that  dwell  therein  shall  die  in  like  manner  ;  for  my 
salvation  shall  be  for  ever,  and  my  righteousness  shall  not  be  abolished  " 
(Isa.  li.  3-6).  The  restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  its  stability  and  per- 
manence, is  described  as  a  creation  of  heaven  and  earth.  For  Isaiah  fre- 
quently speaks  of  the  land  of  a  king  as  if  it  were  the  whole  Universe,  as  if 
heaven  and  earth  belonged  to  him.  He  therefore  comforts  Israel  and  says : 
"  I,  even  I,  am  he  that  comforteth  you,"  etc.  "  And  I  have  put  my  words  in 
thy  mouth,  and  I  have  covered  thee  in  the  shadow  of  mine  hand,  that  I  may 
plant  the  heavens,  and  lay  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  say  unto  Zion, 
Thou  art  my  people"  (li.  12-16).  In  the  following  verses,  Isaiah  declares 
that  the  dominion  of  Israel  will  continue,  whilst  that  of  the  renowned  and 
mighty  people  will  cease  :  "  For  the  mountains  shall  depart,"  etc.  (liv.  10). 
In  order  to  express  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  will  be  permanent,  and 
that  the  kingdom  of  Israel  will  not  be  destroyed  any  more,  he  says,  "  Thy 
sun  shall  no  more  go  down,"  etc.  (Ix,  20).  In  metaphors  like  these,  which 
are  intelligible  to  those  who  understand  the  context,  Isaiah  continues  to 
describe  the  details  of  the  exile,  the  restoration,  and  the  removal  of  all  sorrow, 
and  says  figuratively  as  follows  :  "  I  will  create  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  ; 
for  the  first  shall  be  forgotten,  and  their  memory  shall  be  blotted  out."  He 
explains  this  in  the  course  of  the  speech,  by  pointing  out  that  by  the  phrase, 
"  I  will  create,"  he  means  that  God  will  give  them  perpetual  gladness  and 
joy  in  place  of  the  previous  grief  and  mourning,  which  shall  no  longer  be 
remembered.  I  will  now  describe  the  sequence  of  the  ideas,  and  the  order 
of  the  verses  in  which  these  ideas  are  contained.  The  prophet  begins  as 
follows  :  "  I  will  mention  the  loving-kindncsses  of  the  Lord,"  etc.  (l-^»ii-  7)- 
He  then  gives  (i)  an  account  of  God's  past  kindness  to  us,  concluding  with 
the  words,  "  And  he  bare  them  and  carried  them  all  the  days  of  old  "  (ver. 
9).  (2)  Next  follows  our  rebellion  :  "  But  they  rebelled,  and  vexed  his  holy 
spirit,"  etc.  (ver.  10)  ;  (3)  the  dominion  of  our  enemies  over  us  :  "  Our 
adversaries  have  trodden  down  thy  sanctuary  ;  we  are  like  those  over  whom 
thou  hast  never  ruled,"  etc.  (vers.  18,  19)  ;  (4)  and  the  prophet's  prayer  on 
our  account :  "  Be  not  wroth  very  sore,"  etc.  Qxiv.  9).  (5)  The  prophet 
then  describes  how  we  deserved  these  punishments,  and  how  we  were  called 
to  the  truth  but  did  not  respond  :  "  I  offered  myself  to  be  sought  of  them  that 
asked  not  for  me,"  etc.  (Ixv.  i)  ;  (6)  promises  mercy  and  pardon  :  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  As  the  new  wine  is  found  in  the  cluster,"  etc.  (ver.  8)  ;  (7) 
predicts  evil  for  our  oppressors  :   "  Behold,  my  servant  shall  cat,  but  ye  shall 


2o8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

be  hungry,"  etc.  (ver.  13) ;    (8)  and  moral  improvement  of  our  nation  to 
such  a  degree  that  we  sliall  be  a  blessing  on  the  earth,  and  the  previous 
troubles  will    be  forgotten  :    "  And    he  shall  call    his  servants  by  another 
name  :   that  he  who  blesseth  himself  in  the  earth,  shall  bless  himself  in  the 
God  of  truth  ;   and  he  that  sweareth  in  the  earth,   shall  swear  by  the  God 
of  truth  ;    because  the  former  troubles  are  forgotten,  and  because  they  are 
hid  from  mine  eyes.     For,  behold,  I  create  new  heavens,  and  a  new  earth  : 
and  the  former  shall  not  be  remembered,  nor  come  into  mind.     But  be  ye 
glad  and  rejoice  for  ever  in  that  which  I  create  :   for,  behold,  I  create  Jeru- 
salem a  rejoicing,  and  her  people  a  joy.     And  I  will  rejoice  in  Jerusalem, 
and  joy  in  my  people,"  etc.  (Ixv,  15-19).     The  whole  subject  must  now  be 
clear  and  evident ;  for  the  words,  "  I  create  new  heavens,  and  a  new  earth," 
etc.,  are  followed  by  the  explanation,    "  I  create  Jerusalem  a  rejoicing,  and 
her  people  a  joy,"  etc.     The  prophet  then  adds  that  the  seed  and  name  of 
Israel  will  be  as  permanent  as  their  faith  and  as  the  rejoicing  in  it,   which 
God  promised  to  create  and  to  spread  over  the  whole  earth  :  for  faith  in 
God  and  rejoicing  in  it  are  two  possessions  which,    once  obtained,  are  never 
lost  or  changed.     This  is  expressed  in  the  words :     "  For  as  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth,  which  I  will  make,  remain  before  me,  saith  the  Lord,   so 
shall  your  seed  and  your  name  remain  "  (Ixvi.  22).      But  of  other  nations, 
in  some  instances,  the  seed  remains,  whilst  the  name  has  perished  ;  so,  e.g. 
many  people  are  of  the  seed  of  the  Persians  or  Greeks,  without  being  known 
by  that  special  name  ;  they  bear  the  names  of  other  nations,  of  which  they 
form  part.     According  to  my  opinion,  we  have  here  a  prophecy  that  our 
religion,  which  gives  us  our  special  name,  will  remain  permanently. 

As  these  figures  are  frequent  in  Isaiah,  I  explained  all  of  them.  But  we 
meet  with  them  also  in  the  words  of  other  prophets.  Jeremiah,  in  describing 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  consequence  of  our  sins,  says  (iv.  23)  :  "  I 
beheld  the  earth,  and,  lo,  it  was  without  form,  and  void,"  etc.  Ezekiel 
(xxxii.  7,  8)  foretells  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Egypt,  and  the  death 
of  Pharaoh,  through  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the  following  words :  "  And  when 
I  shall  put  thee  out,  I  will  cover  the  heaven,  and  make  the  stars  thereof  dark  ; 
I  will  cover  the  sun  with  a  cloud,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light.  All 
the  bright  lights  of  heaven  will  I  make  dark  over  thee,  and  set  darkness  upon 
thy  land,  saith  the  Lord."  Joel,  the  son  of  Pethuel  (ii.  10),  describes  the 
multitude  of  locusts  that  came  in  his  days  as  follows  :  "  The  earth  shall 
quake  before  them  :  the  heavens  shall  tremble  :  the  sun  and  the  moon  shall 
be  dark,  and  the  stars  shall  withdraw  their  shining."  Amos  (viii.  9,  10), 
speaking  of  the  destruction  of  Samaria,  says  :  "  I  will  cause  the  sun  to  go 
down  at  noon,  and  I  will  darken  the  earth  in  the  clear  day  ;  and  I  will  turn 
your  feasts,"  etc.  Micah  (i.  3,  4),  in  relating  the  fall  of  Samaria,  uses  the 
following  well-known  rhetorical  figures :  "  For,  behold,  the  Lord  cometh 
forth  out  of  his  place,  and  will  come  down,  and  tread  upon  the  high  places 
of  the  earth.  And  the  mountains  shall  be  molten,"  etc.  Similarly  Haggai 
(ii.  6,  7),  in  describing  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians :  "  I  will  shake  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  the  dry 
land  ;  and  I  will  shake  all  nations,"  etc.  When  [David]  (Ps.  Ix.  4)  describes 
how,  during  the  expedition  of  Joab  against  the  Edomites,  the  nation  was  low 
and  weak,  and  how  he  prayed  to  God  for  His  assistance,  he  says  :    "  Thou 


ON    THE    LANGUAGE   OF    THE    PRorHETS       200 

hast  made  the  earth  to  tremble  ;  thou  hast  broken  it :  heal  the  brcache* 
thereof  ;  for  it  shaketh."  In  another  instance  he  expresses  the  idea  that 
we  need  not  fear  when  we  sec  other  nations  die  and  perish,  because  we  rely 
on  God's  support,  and  not  on  our  sword  and  strength,  in  accordance  with  the 
words  :  "  A  people  saved  by  the  Lord,  the  shield  of  thy  help  "  (Dcut.  xxiiii. 
29)  ;  he  says  (Ps.  xlvi.  2)  :  "  Therefore  will  we  not  fear,  though  the  earth 
be  removed,  and  though  the  mountains  be  shaken  in  the  midst  of  the  sea." 

The  following  figurative  language  is  employed  in  Scripture  in  referring  to 
the  death  of  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea  :  "  The  waters  saw  thee  ;  they 
were  afraid  :  the  depths  also  were  troubled,  etc.  The  voice  of  thy  thunder 
was  in  the  heaven  :  the  lightnings  lightened  the  world  ;  the  earth  trembled 
and  shook "  (Ps.  Ixxvii.  17-19).  "  Was  the  Lord  displeased  against  the 
rivers  ?  "  etc.  (Hab.  iii.  8).  "  There  went  up  a  smoke  out  of  his  nostrils," 
etc.  (Ps.  xviii.  9).  "  The  earth  trembled,"  etc.  (Judges  v.  4,  in  the  Song  of 
Deborah).  There  are  many  other  instances ;  but  those  which  I  have  not 
quoted  can  be  explained  in  accordance  with  those  which  I  have  cited. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  words  of  Joel  (iii.  3-5)  :  "  And  I  will  show  won- 
ders in  the  heavens  and  in  the  earth,  blood  and  fire,  and  pillars  of  smoke. 
The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness,  and  the  moon  into  blood,  before  the 
great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord  come.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered,  for  in  Mount 
Zion  and  in  Jerusalem  shall  be  deliverance,"  etc.  I  refer  them  to  the  defeat 
of  Sennacherib  near  Jerusalem  ;  but  they  may  be  taken  as  an  account  of  the 
defeat  of  Gog  and  Magog  near  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah,  if  this 
appears  preferable,  although  nothing  is  mentioned  in  this  passage  but  great 
slaughter,  destruction,  fire,  and  the  diminution  of  the  light  of  the  two  lumi- 
naries. You  may  perhaps  object :  How  can  the  day  of  the  fall  of  Senna- 
cherib, according  to  our  explanation,  be  called  "  the  great  and  the  terrible  day 
of  the  Lord  ?  "  But  you  must  know  that  a  day  of  great  salvation  or  of  great 
distress  is  called  "  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord."  Thus  Joel  (ii.  1 1) 
says  of  the  day  on  which  the  locusts  came  over  the  land,  "  For  the  day  of  the 
Lord  is  great  and  terrible,  and  who  can  abide  it  ?  " 

Our  opinion,  in  support  of  which  we  have  quoted  these  passages,  is  clearly 
established,  namely,  that  no  prophet  or  sage  has  ever  announced  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Universe,  or  a  change  of  its  present  condition,  or  a  permanent 
change  of  any  of  its  properties.  When  our  Sages  say,  "  The  world  remains 
six  thousand  years,  and  one  thousand  years  it  will  be  waste,"  they  do  not 
mean  a  complete  cessation  of  existing  things ;  the  phrase  "  one  thousand 
years  it  vi^ll  be  waste  "  distinctly  shows  that  time  will  continue  ;  besides,  this 
is  the  individual  opinion  of  one  Rabbi,  and  in  accordance  with  one  particular 
theory.  But  on  the  other  hand  the  words,  "  There  is  nothing  new  under 
the  sun  "  (Eccles.  i.  9),  in  the  sense  that  no  new  creation  takes  place  in  any 
way  and  under  any  circumstances,  express  the  general  opinion  of  our  Sages, 
and  include  a  principle  which  every  one  of  the  doctors  of  the  Mishnah  and 
the  Talmud  recognises  and  makes  use  of  in  his  arguments.  Even  those  who 
understand  the  words  "  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  "  in  their  literal  sense 
hold  that  the  heavens,  which  will  in  future  be  formed,  have  already  been 
created  and  are  in  existence,  and  tlint  for  this  reason  the  present  tense 
"  remain  "  is  used,  and  not  the  future  "  will  remain."     They  support  their 


210  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

view  by  citing  the  text,  "  There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun."  Do  not 
imagine  that  this  is  opposed  to  our  opinion.  They  mean,  perhaps,  to  say 
that  the  natural  laws,  by  which  the  promised  future  condition  of  Israel  will 
be  effected,  have  been  in  existence  since  the  days  of  the  Creation,  and  in  that 
they  are  perfectly  correct.  When  I,  however,  said  that  no  prophet  ever 
announced  "  a  permanent  change  of  any  of  its  properties,"  I  intended  to 
except  miracles.  For  although  the  rod  was  turned  into  a  serpent,  the  water 
into  blood,  the  pure  and  noble  hand  into  a  leprous  one,  wdthout  the  existence 
of  any  natural  cause  that  could  effect  these  or  similar  phenomena,  these 
changes  were  not  permanent,  they  have  not  become  a  physical  property.  On 
the  contrary,  the  Universe  since  continues  its  regular  course.  This  is  my 
opinion;  this  shouldbe  our  belief.  Our  Sages,  however,  said  verystrange  things 
as  regards  miracles ;  they  are  found  in  Bereshit  Rabha,  and  in  Midrask 
Koheleth,  namely,  that  the  miracles  are  to  some  extent  also  natural ;  for  they 
say,  when  God  created  the  Universe  vdth  its  present  physical  properties.  He 
made  it  part  of  these  properties,  that  they  should  produce  certain  miracles 
at  certain  times,  and  the  sign  of  a  prophet  consisted  in  the  fact  that  God  told 
him  to  declare  when  a  certain  thing  will  take  place,  but  the  thing  itself  was 
effected  according  to  the  fixed  laws  of  Nature.  If  this  is  really  the  meaning 
of  the  passage  referred  to,  it  testifies  to  the  greatness  of  the  author,  and  shows 
that  he  held  it  to  be  impossible  that  there  should  be  a  change  in  the  laws  of 
Nature,  or  a  change  in  the  wiU  of  God  [as  regards  the  physical  properties  of 
things]  after  they  have  once  been  established.  He  therefore  assumes,  e.g., 
that  God  gave  the  waters  the  property  of  joining  together,  and  of  flowang  in 
a  downward  direction,  and  of  separating  only  at  the  time  when  the  Egyptians 
were  drowned,  and  only  in  a  particular  place.  I  have  already  pointed  out 
to  you  the  source  of  this  passage,  and  it  only  tends  to  oppose  the  hypothesis 
of  a  new  creation.  It  is  said  there  :  R.  Jonathan  said,  God  made  an  agree- 
ment with  the  sea  that  it  should  divide  before  the  Israelites ;  thus  it  is  said, 
"  And  the  sea  returned  to  its  strength  when  the  morning  appeared  "  (Exod. 
xiv.  27).  R.  Jeremiah,  son  of  Elazar,  said  :  Not  only  with  the  sea,  but  with 
all  that  has  been  created  in  the  six  days  of  the  beginning  [was  the  agreement 
made]  ;  this  is  referred  to  in  the  words,  "  I,  even  my  hands  have  stretched 
out  the  heavens,  and  all  their  host  have  I  commanded  "  (Isa.  xlv.  12)  ;  i.e., 
I  have  commanded  the  sea  to  divide,  the  fire  not  to  hurt  Hananiah,  Mishael, 
and  Azariah,  the  lions  not  to  harm  Daniel,  and  the  fish  to  spit  out  Jonah. 
The  same  is  the  case  with  the  rest  of  the  miracles. 

We  have  thus  clearly  stated  and  explained  our  opinion,  that  we  agree  with 
Aristotle  in  one  half  of  his  theory.  For  we  believe  that  this  Universe  remains 
perpetually  with  the  same  properties  with  which  the  Creator  has  endowed 
it,  and  that  none  of  these  will  ever  be  changed  except  by  way  of  miracle  in 
some  individual  instances,  although  the  Creator  has  the  power  to  change 
the  whole  Universe,  to  annihilate  it,  or  to  remove  any  of  its  properties. 
The  Universe,  had,  however,  a  beginning  and  commencement,  for  when 
nothing  was  as  yet  in  existence  except  God,  His  wisdom  decreed  that  the 
Universe  be  brought  into  existence  at  a  certain  time,  that  it  should  not  be 
annihilated  or  changed  as  regards  any  of  its  properties,  except  in  some  in- 
stances ;  some  of  these  are  known  to  us,  whilst  others  belong  to  the  future, 
and   are  therefore  unknown  to  us.     This  is  our  opinion  and  the  basis  of  our 


ON    THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    VRiU'IlETS 


^11 


religion.  The  opinion  of  Aristotle  is  that  the  Universe,  being  permanent 
and  indestructible,  is  also  eternal  and  without  beginning.  Wc  liavc  alrcadv 
shown  that  this  theory  is  based  on  the  hypothesis  that  tiie  Universe  is  the 
necessary  result  of  causal  relation,  and  that  this  hypothesis  includes  a  certain 
amount  of  blasphemy.  Having  come  thus  far  we  will  make  in  the  next 
chapter  a  few  remarks  on  passages  in  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis.  For  the 
primary  object  in  this  treatise  has  been  to  expound  as  much  as  possible  of 
the  Scriptural  account  of  the  Creation  {ma'aseh  bercshit),  and  the  description 
of  the  heavenly  chariot  (ma'aseh  mercabah).  But  let  us  premise  two  general 
observations. 

First,  the  account  given  in  Scripture  of  the  Creation  is  not,  as  is  generally 
believed,  intended  to  be  in  all  its  parts  literal.  For  if  this  were  the  case, 
wise  men  would  not  have  kept  its  explanation  secret,  and  our  Sages  would 
not  have  employed  figurative  speech  [in  treating  of  the  Creation]  in  order  to 
hide  its  true  meaning,  nor  would  they  have  objected  to  discuss  it  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  common  people.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  words  might  lead 
us  to  conceive  corrupt  ideas  and  to  form  false  opinions  about  God,  or  even 
entirely  to  abandon  and  reject  the  principles  of  our  Faith.  It  is  therefore 
right  to  abstain  and  refrain  from  examining  this  subject  superficially  and 
unscientifically.  We  must  blame  the  practice  of  some  ignorant  preachers 
and  expounders  of  the  Bible,  who  think  that  wisdom  consists  in  knowing  the 
explanation  of  words,  and  that  greater  perfection  is  attained  by  employing 
more  words  and  longer  speech.  It  is,  however,  right  that  we  should  examine 
the  Scriptural  texts  by  the  intellect,  after  having  acquired  a  knowedgc  of 
demonstrative  science,  and  of  the  true  hidden  meaning  of  prophecies.  But 
if  one  has  obtained  some  knowledge  in  this  matter  he  must  not  preach  on  it, 
as  I  stated  in  my  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah  (llagigah,  ii.  7),  and  our 
Sages  said  distinctly  :  From  the  beginning  of  the  book  to  this  place — after 
the  account  of  the  sixth  day  of  the  Creation — it  is  "  the  glory  of  God  to 
conceal  a  thing  "  (Prov.  xxv.  2). 

We  have  thus  clearly  stated  our  opinion.  It  is,  however,  part  of  the 
Divine  plan  that  everyone  who  has  obtained  some  perfection  transmit  it  to 
some  other  persons,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  chapter  on  Prophecy.  It  is, 
therefore,  impossible  for  a  scholar  to  possess  knowledge  of  these  problems, 
whether  it  be  through  his  own  researches  or  through  his  master's  teaching, 
without  communicating  part  of  that  knowledge  to  others ;  it  cannot  be  done 
in  clear  words ;  it  must  be  done  sparingly  by  way  of  hints.  We  find  in  the 
words  of  some  of  our  Sages  numerous  hints  and  notes  of  this  kind,  but  mixed 
up  with  the  words  of  others  and  with  other  subjects.  In  treating  of  these 
mysteries,  as  a  rule,  I  quote  as  much  as  contains  the  principal  idea,  and  leave 
the  rest  for  those  who  are  worthy  of  it. 

Secondly,  the  prophets  employ  homonymous  terms  and  use  words  which 
are  not  meant  to  be  understood  in  their  ordinary  signification,  but  arc  only 
used  because  of  some  other  meaning  which  they  admit,  e.g.,  "  a  rod  of  an 
almond-tree  (shaked)"  because  of  the  words  which  follow,  "  for  I  will  hasten 
(shaked)  "  (Jer.  i.  11,  12),  as  will  be  shown  in  the  chapter  on  Prophecy.  Ac- 
cording to  the  same  principle  Ezekiel  in  the  account  of  the  Divine  Chariot 
employs,  as  we  have  stated  the  term  i>dshmal  (Ezck.  i.  4)  ;  also  rrgfl  egrl 
(v.  7),  nelposhet   kalal  (v.  7),  and    similar    terms ;  Zcchariah  (vi.  l)  likewise 


212  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

adopts  this  method,  and  says :    "  And  the  mountains  were  mountains  of 
iiehoshet  (brass),"  and  the  like. 

After  these  two  remarks  I  will  proceed  to  the  chapter  which  I  have  pro- 
mised. 


CHAPTER  XXX 

There  is  a  difference  between  first  and  beginning  (or  principle).  The  latter 
exists  in  the  thing  of  which  it  is  the  beginning,  or  co-exists  with  it ;  it  need 
not  precede  it ;  e.g.,  the  heart  is  the  beginning  of  the  living  being  ;  the 
element  is  the  beginning  of  that  of  which  it  is  the  basis.  The  term  "  first  " 
is  likewise  applied  to  things  of  this  kind  ;  but  is  also  employed  in  cases  where 
precedence  in  time  alone  is  to  be  expressed,  and  the  thing  which  precedes  is 
not  the  beginning  (or  the  cause)  of  the  thing  that  follows.  E.g.,  we  say  A. 
was  the  first  inhabitant  of  this  house,  after  him  came  B  ;  this  does  not  imply 
that  A  is  the  cause  of  B  inhabiting  the  house.  In  Hebrew,  tehillah  is  used 
in  the  sense  of  "  first  "  ;  e.g.,  when  God  first  {tehillat)  spake  to  Hosea 
(Hos.  i.  l),  and  the  "  beginning  "  is  expressed  by  reshith,  derived  from  rosh, 
"  head,"  the  principal  part  of  the  living  being  as  regards  position.  The 
Universe  has  not  been  created  out  of  an  element  that  preceded  it  in  time, 
since  time  itself  formed  part  of  the  Creation.  For  this  reason  Scripture 
employs  the  term  "  bereshit "  (in  a  principle),  in  which  the  beth  is  a  pre- 
position denoting  "  in."  The  true  explanation  of  the  first  verse  of  Genesis 
is  as  follows  :  "  In  [creating]  a  principle  God  created  the  beings  above  and 
the  things  below."  This  explanation  is  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of 
the  Creation.  We  find  that  some  of  our  Sages  are  reported  to  have  held  the 
opinion  that  time  existed  before  the  Creation.  But  this  report  is  very 
doubtful,  because  the  theory  that  time  cannot  be  imagined  with  a  beginning, 
has  been  taught  by  Aristotle,  as  I  showed  you,  and  is  objectionable.  Those 
who  have  made  this  assertion  have  been  led  to  it  by  a  saying  of  one  of  our 
Sages  in  reference  to  the  terms  "  one  day,"  "  a  second  day."  Taking  these 
terms  literally,  the  author  of  that  saying  asked,  What  determined  "  the  first 
day,"  since  there  was  no  rotating  sphere,  and  no  sun  ?  and  continues  as 
follows :  Scripture  uses  the  term  "  one  day  "  ;  R.  Jehudah,  son  of  R.  Simon, 
said  :  "  Hence  we  learn  that  the  divisions  of  time  have  existed  previously." 
R.  Abahu  said,  "  Hence  we  learn  that  God  built  worlds  and  again  destroyed 
them."  This  latter  exposition  is  still  worse  than  the  former.  Consider  the 
difficulty  which  these  two  Rabbis  found  in  the  statement  that  time  existed 
before  the  creation  of  the  sun.  We  shall  undoubtedly  soon  remove  this 
difficulty,  unless  these  two  Rabbis  intended  to  infer  from  the  Scriptural  text 
that  the  divisions  of  time  must  have  existed  before  the  Creation,  and  thus 
adopted  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  But  every  religious 
man  rejects  this.  The  above  saying  is,  in  my  opinion,  certainly  of  the  same 
character  as  that  of  R.  Eliezer,  "  Whence  were  the  heavens  created,"  etc., 
(chap.  xxvi.).  In  short,  in  these  questions,  do  not  take  notice  of  the  utter- 
ances of  any  person.  I  told  you  that  the  foundation  of  our  faith  is  the  belief 
that  God  created  the  Universe  from  nothing  ;  that  time  did  not  exist  pre- 
viously, but  was  created  ;  for  it  depends  on  the  motion  of  the  sphere,  and  the 
sphere  has  been  created. 


ON    GENESIS  I.-IV.  213 

You  must  know  that  the  particle  et  in  the  phrase  et  ha-shamayim  ve-tt 
ha-arez  ("  the  heavens  and  the  earth  ")  signifies  "  together  with  "  ;  our 
Sages  have  explained  the  word  in  the  same  sense  in  many  instances.  Accord- 
ingly they  assume  that  God  created  with  the  heavens  everything  that  the 
heavens  contain,  and  with  the  earth  everything  the  earth  includes.  They 
further  say  that  the  simultaneous  Creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  is 
implied  in  the  words,  "  I  call  unto  them,  they  stand  up  together  "  (Ps.  xlviii.). 
Consequently,  all  things  were  created  together,  but  were  separated  from 
each  other  successively.  Our  Sages  illustrated  this  by  the  following  simile  : 
We  sow  various  seeds  at  the  same  time  ;  some  spring  forth  after  one  day, 
some  after  two,  and  some  after  three  days,  although  all  have  been  sown  at 
the  same  time.  According  to  this  interpretation,  which  is  undoubtedly 
correct,  the  difficulty  is  removed,  which  led  R.  Jehudah,  son  of  R.  Simon, 
to  utter  the  above  saying,  and  consisted  in  the  doubt  as  to  the  thing  by  which 
the  first  day,  the  second,  and  the  third  were  determined.  In  Bertshit 
Rabba,  our  Sages,  speaking  of  the  light  created  on  the  first  day  according 
to  the  Scriptural  account,  say  as  follows :  these  lights  [of  the  luminaries 
mentioned  in  the  Creation  of  the  fourth  day]  are  the  same  that  were  created 
on  the  first  day,  but  were  only  fixed  in  their  places  on  the  fourth  day.  The 
meaning  [of  the  first  verse]  has  thus  been  clearly  stated. 

We  must  further  consider  that  the  term  erez  is  a  homonym,  and  is  used 
in  a  general  and  a  particular  sense.  It  has  a  more  general  signification  when 
used  of  everything  vnthin  the  sphere  of  the  moon,  i.e.,  of  all  the  four  ele- 
ments ;  and  is  used  in  particular  of  one  of  them,  of  the  lowest,  viz.,  earth. 
This  is  evident  from  the  passage  :  "  And  the  earth  was  without  form  and 
void,  and  darkness  was  on  the  surface  of  the  deep.  And  the  wind  of  God 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  The  term  "  earth  "  [mentioned  here, 
and  in  the  first  verse]  includes  all  the  four  elements,  whilst  further  on  it  is 
said,  "  And  God  called  the  dry  land  Earth  "  (Gen.  i.  10). 

It  is  also  important  to  notice  that  the  words,  "  And  God  called  a  certain 
thing  a  certain  name,"  are  invariably  intended  to  distinguish  one  thing  from 
others  which  are  called  by  the  same  common  noun.  I  explain,  therefore, 
the  first  verse  in  Genesis  thus  :  In  creating  the  principle  God  created  the 
things  above  and  those  below.  Erez.  in  this  verse  denotes  "  the  things  be- 
low," or  "  the  four  elements,"  and  in  the  verse,  "  And  God  called  the  dr)' 
land  Earth"  (erez),  it  signifies  the  element  earth.     This  subject  is  now 

made  clear. 

The  four  elements  indicated,  according  to  our  explanation,  in  the  term 
erez  "  earth,"  in  the  first  verse,  are  mentioned  first  after  the  heavens ;  for 
there  are  named  erez  (earth),  rual?  (air),  mayim  (water),  and  hoshfk  (fire). 
By  hoshek  the  element  fire  is  meant,  nothing  else ;  comp.  ^^J^^  ^,^ou 
heardest  his  words  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire  "  (Dcut.  iv.  36)  ;  and,  W  hen 
ye  heard  the  voice  out  of  the  midst  of  the  hoshek  "  (darkness)  {ihd.y.  2)  ; 
again,  "All  boshek  (darkness)  shall  be  hid  in  his  secret  places  :  a  /Sr^  not 
blown  shall  consume  him  "  Qob  xx.  26).  The  element  fire  is  called  boshek 
because  it  is  not  luminous,  it  is  only  transparent ;  for  .fit  were  luminous  wc 
should  see  at  night  the  whole  atmosphere  in  flames.  The  order  of  the  four 
elements,  according  to  the  natural  position  is  here  described  ;  namely  first 
earth,  above  it  water,  air  close  to  water,  and  fire  above  air  ;  for  by  placing 


214  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

air  over  water,  hoshek  (fire),  which  is  "  upon  the 'face  of  the  deep,"  is  un- 
doubtedly above  air.  It  was  here  necessary  to  use  the  term  ruah  elohim, 
because  air  is  described  here  as  in  motion  {merahefet),  and  the  motion  of 
the  air  is,  as  a  rule,  ascribed  to  God  ;  comp.  "  And  there  went  forth  a  wind 
from  the  Lord  "  (Num.  xi.  31) ;  "  Thou  didst  blow  with  thy  wdnd  "  (Exod. 
rv.  lo)  ;  "  And  the  Lord  turned  a  mighty  strong  west  wind  "  {ibid.  x.  19), 
and  the  like.  As  the  first  hoshek,  which  denotes  the  element  fire,  is  differ- 
ent from  the  hoshek  mentioned  further  on  in  the  sense  of  "  darkness,"  the 
latter  is  explained  and  distinguished  from  the  former,  according  to  our 
explanation,  in  the  words,  "  And  darkness  he  called  Night."  This  is  now 
clear. 

The  phrase,  "  And  he  divided  between  the  waters,"  etc.,  does  not  describe 
a  division  in  space,  as  if  the  one  part  were  merely  above  the  other,  whilst  the 
nature  of  both  remained  the  same,  but  a  distinction  as  regards  their  nature 
or  form.  One  portion  of  that  which  was  first  called  water  was  made  one 
thing  by  certain  properties  it  received,  and  another  portion  received  a 
different  form,  and  this  latter  portion  is  that  which  is  commonly  called  water 
and  of  this  it  is  said,  "  And  the  gathering  of  the  waters  he  called  Seas." 
Scripture  even  indicates  that  the  first  mayim  ("  water  ")  in  the  phrase,  "  On 
the  face  of  the  waters,"  does  not  refer  to  the  waters  which  form  the  seas  ; 
and  that  part  of  the  element  "  water,"  having  received  a  particular  form, 
and  being  above  the  air,  is  distinguished  from  the  other  part  which  has  re- 
ceived the  form  of  ordinary  water.  For  the  words,  "  And  he  divided  between 
the  waters  which  are  beneath  the  firmament  and  the  waters  which  are  above 
the  firmament,"  are  similar  in  meaning  to  the  phrase,  "  And  God  divided 
between  the  light  and  the  darkness,"  and  refer  to  a  distinction  by  a  separate 
form.  The  firmament  itself  was  formed  of  water;  and  in  the  words  of  our 
Sages  {Bereshit  Rabba  ;  cap.  iv.),  "  The  middle  drop  congealed  and  formed 
the  heavens." 

Here  likewise  Scripture  says,  in  accordance  with  what  I  said  above, 
"  And  God  called  the  firmament  Heaven  "  (Gen.  i.  8),  in  order  to  explain 
the  homonymity  of  the  term  shamayim  (heaven),  and  to  show  that  shamayim 
in  the  first  verse  is  not  the  firmament  which  is  also  called  shamayim  (heaven). 
The  difference  is  more  clearly  expressed  in  the  words,  "  In  the  open  firma- 
ment of  heaven  "  {ibid.  i.  20)  ;  here  it  is  shown  that  "  firmament  "  {raki^a), 
and  "  heaven  "  {shamayim),  are  two  different  things.  In  consequence  of 
this  homonymity  of  the  term  sha?nayim  the  term  raki'a  (firmament)  is 
also  used  of  the  true  heaven,  just  as  the  real  firmament  is  sometimes  called 
shamayim  (heaven)  ;  comp.  "  And  God  set  them  in  the  raki'a  (firmament) 
of  the  heaven  "  {ibid.  i.  17). 

This  verse  shows  clearly  that  the  stars,  the  sun,  and  the  moon  are  not,  as 
people  believe,  on  the  surface  of  the  spheres,  but  they  arc  fixed  in  the  spheres, 
and  this  has  been  proved  satisfactorily,  there  being  no  vacuum  in  the  Uni- 
verse ;  for  it  is  said,  "  in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven,"  and  not  "  upon  the 
firmament  of  the  heaven." 

It  is  therefore  clear  that  there  has  been  one  common  element  called  water, 
which  has  been  afterwards  distinguished  by  three  different  forms  ;  one  part 
forms  the  seas,  another  the  firmament,  and  a  third  part  is  over  the  firmament, 
and  all  this  is  separate  from  the  earth.     The  Scriptural  text  follows  here  a 


ON    GENESIS    I.-IV.  215 

peculiar  method  in  order  to  indicate  some  extraordinary  mysteries.  It  ha» 
also  been  declared  by  our  Sages  that  the  portion  above  the  firmament  is 
only  water  by  name,  not  in  reality,  for  they  say  (Babyl.  Talmud,  Ija^i^ah  14b) 
"  Four  entered  the  paradise,"  etc.  R.  yVkiba  said  to  them,  "  When  you  come 
to  the  stores  of  pure  marble,  do  not  say.  Water,  water,  for  it  is  written,  '  He 
that  telleth  lies  shall  not  tarry  in  my  sight '  "  (Ps.  ci.  7).  Consider,  if  you 
belong  to  the  class  of  thinking  men,  how  clearly  and  distinctly  this  pa'-a-e 
explains  the  subject  for  those  who  reflect  on  it !  Understand  that  which 
has  been  proved  by  Aristotle  in  his  book  On  Meteorology,  and  note  whatever 
men  of  science  have  said  on  meteorological  matters. 

It  is  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  reason  why  the  declaration  "  that  it  was 
good  "  is  not  found  in  the  account  of  the  second  day  of  the  Creation.     The 
various  Midrashic  sayings  of  our  Sages  on  this  point  are  well  known  ;    the 
best  of  them  is  the  explanation  that  the  creation  of  the  water  was  not  com- 
pleted on  that  day.     According  to  my  opinion  the  reason  is  likewise  clear, 
and  is  as  follows  :  When  the  creation  of  any  part  of  the  Universe  is  described 
that  is  permanent,  regular,  and  in  a  settled  order,  the  phrase  "  that  it  is 
good  "  is  used.     But  the  account  of  the  firmament,  with  that  which  is  above 
it  and  is  called  water,  is,  as  you  see,  of  a  very  mysterious  character.     For  if 
taken  literally  the  firmament  would  appear  at  first  thought  to  be  merely  an 
imaginary  thing,  as  there  is  no  other  substance  but  the  elements  between  us 
and  the  lowest  of  the  heavenly  spheres,  and  there  is  no  water  above  the  air ; 
and  if  the  firmament,  with  that  which  is  over  it,  be  supposed  to  be  above  the 
heavens,  it  would  a  fortiori  seem  to  be  unreal  and  uncomprehensiblc.     But 
if  the  account  be  understood  in  a  figurative  sense  and  according  to  its  true 
meaning,  it  is  still  more  mysterious,  since  it  was  considered  necessarv'  to  make 
this  one  of  the  most  hidden  secrets,  in  order  to  prevent  the  multitude  from 
knowing  it.     This  being  the  case,  how  could  it  be  said  [of  the  creation  of  the 
second  day]  "  that  it  was  good  "  ?     This  phrase  would  tell  us  that  it  is  per- 
fectly clear  what  share  the  thing  to  which  it  refers  takes  in  the  permanent 
existence  of  the  Universe.    But  what  good  can  people  find  in  a  tiling  whose 
real  nature  is  hidden,  and  whose  apparent  nature  is  not  real  ?     ^^  hy,  there- 
fore, should*  it  be  said  in  reference  to  it,  "  that  it  was  good  "  ?     I  must, 
however,  give  the  following  additional  explanation.     Although  the  result  of 
the  second  day's  creation  forms  an  important  element  among  the  existing 
things,  the  firmament  was  not  its  primary  object  in  the  organization  of  the 
Universe,  and  therefore  it  could  not  be  said  ''  that  it  was  good  "  ;  it  was  only 
the  means  for  the  uncovering  of  the  earth.     Note  this.     Our  Sages  have 
already  explained  that  the  herbs  and  trees,  which  God  caused  to  spring  forth 
from  the  ground,  were  caused  by  God  to  grow,  after  He  had  sent  down 
rain  upon  them  ;    and  the  passage  beginning,  "  And  there  went  up  a  mist 
from  the  earth  "  (ii.  6),  refers  to  that  which  took  place  before  the  creative 
act,  related  in  the  words,  "  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,"  etc.  (i.  ii.). 
Therefore  Onkelos  translates  it :    "  And  there  had  gone  up  a  mist  from  the 
earth."    It  is  also  evident  from  the  text  itself,  where  it  is  distinctly  said,  "  And 
every  plant  in  the  field  before  it   was   in   the  earth,"   etc.   (ii.    5).      This 
question  is  now  explained. 

It  is  well  known  to  every  philosopher  that  the  principal  causes  of  produc- 
tion and  destruction,  after  the  inlluence  of  the  spliercs,  are  light  and  dark- 


2i6  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ness,  in  so  far  as  these  are  accompanied  by  heat  and  cold.  For  by  the  motion 
of  the  spheres  the  elements  intermix,  and  by  light  and  darkness  their  consti- 
tution changes.  The  first  change  consists  in  the  formation  of  two  kinds 
of  mist ;  these  are  the  first  causes  of  meteorological  phenomena,  such  as 
rain ;  they  also  caused  the  formation  of  minerals,  of  plants,  of  animals,  and 
at  last  of  man.  It  is  likewise  known  that  darkness  is  the  natural  property  of 
all  things  on  earth ;  in  them  light  is  accidental,  coming  from  an  external 
cause,  and  therefore  everything  remains  in  a  state  of  rest  in  the  absence  of 
light.  The  Scriptural  account  of  the  Creation  follows  in  every  respect 
exactly  the  same  order,  without  any  deviation. 

Note  also  the  saying  of  our  Sages :  "  When  the  Universe  was  created,  all 
things  were  created  vvith  size,  intellect,  and  beauty  fully  developed,  i.e., 
everything  was  created  perfect  in  magnitude  and  form,  and  endowed  with 
the  most  suitable  properties ;  the  word  zibyonam  (their  beauty)  used  here 
has  the  same  meaning  as  zebi,  '  glory  '  "  (Ezek.  xx.  6).  Note  this  likewise, 
for  it  includes  a  principle  fully  established. 

The  following  point  now  claims  our  attention.  The  account  of  the  six 
days  of  creation  contains,  in  reference  to  the  creation  of  man,  the  statement : 
"  Male  and  female  created  he  them  "  (i.  27),  and  concludes  with  the  words  : 
"  Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  finished,  and  all  the  host  of  them  " 
(ii.  i),  and  yet  the  portion  which  follows  describes  the  creation  of  Eve  from 
Adam,  the  tree  of  life,  and  the  tree  of  knowledge,  the  history  of  the  serpent 
and  the  events  connected  therewith,  and  all  this  as  having  taken  place  after 
Adam  had  been  placed  in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  All  our  Sages  agree  that  this 
took  place  on  the  sixth  day,  and  that  nothing  new  was  created  after  the  close 
of  the  six  days.  None  of  the  things  mentioned  above  is  therefore  impossible, 
because  the  laws  of  Nature  were  then  not  yet  permanently  fixed.  There 
are,  however,  some  utterances  of  our  Sages  on  this  subject  [which  apparently 
imply  a  different  view].  I  will  gather  them  from  their  different  sources  and 
place  them  before  you,  and  I  wall  refer  also  to  certain  things  by  mere  hints, 
just  as  has  been  done  by  the  Sages.  1  You  must  know  that  their  words,  which 
I  am  about  to  quote,  are  most  perfect,  most  accurate,  and  clear  to  those  for 
whom  they  were  said.  I  will  therefore  not  add  long  explanations,  lest  I 
make  their  statements  plain,  and  I  might  thus  become  "  a  revealer  of  secrets," 
but  I  will  give  them  in  a  certain  order,  accompanied  with  a  few  remarks, 
wJiich  will  suffice  for  readers  like  you. 

One  of  these  utterances  is  this  :  "  Adam  and  Eve  were  at  first  created  as 
one  being,  having  their  backs  united ;  they  were  then  separated,  and  one 
half  was  removed  and  brought  before  Adam  as  Eve."  The  term  mt- 
:z.al'otav  (lit.  "  of  his  ribs  ")  signifies  "  of  his  sides."  The  meaning  of  the 
word  is  proved  by  referring  to  zeha,  "  the  side  "  of  the  tabernacle  (Exod. 
xxvi.  20),  which  Onkelos  renders  setar  ("  side  "),  and  so  also  mi-zahotav  is 
rendered  by  him  "  mi-sitrohi "  (of  his  sides).  Note  also  how  clearly  it  has 
been  stated  that  Adam  and  Eve  were  two  in  some  respects,  and  yet  they 
remained  one,  according  to  the  words,  "  Bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my 
flesh  "  (Gen.  ii,  23).  The  unity  of  the  two  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  both 
have  the  same  name,  for  she  is  called  ishshah  (woman),  because  she  was  taken 
out  of  ish  (man),  also  by  the  words,  "  And  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife,  and  they 
shall  be  one  flesh  "  (ii.  24).     How  great  is  the  ignorance  of  those  who  do  not 


ON    GENESIS    I.-IV.  217 

see  that  all  this  necessarily  includes  some  [other]   idea   [besides   the   literal 
meaning  of  the  words].     This  is  now  clear. 

Another  noteworthy  Midrashic  remark  of  our  Sages  is  the  following  : 
"  The  serpent  had  a  rider,  the  rider  was  as  big  as  a  camel,  and  it  was  the  rider 
that  enticed  Eve ;  this  rider  was  Samael."  Samael  is  the  name  generally 
applied  by  our  Sages  to  Satan.  Thus  they  say  in  several  places  that  Satan 
desired  to  entice  Abraham  to  sin,  and  to  abstain  from  binding  Isaac,  and  he 
desired  also  to  persuade  Isaac  not  to  obey  his  father.  At  the  same  time  they 
also  say,  in  reference  to  the  same  subject,  viz.,  the  Akedah  ("  the  binding  of 
Isaac  "),  that  Sama'd  came  to  Abraham  and  said  to  him,  "  What !  hast 
thou,  being  an  old  man,  lost  thy  senses  ?  "  etc.  This  shows  that  Samael  and 
Satan  are  identical.  There  is  a  meaning  in  this  name  [Samael],  as  there  is 
also  in  the  name  nahash  ("  serpent  ").  In  describing  how  the  serpent  came 
to  entice  Eve,  our  Sages  say  :  "  Samael  was  riding  on  it,  and  God  was  laugh- 
ing at  both  the  camel  and  its  rider,"  It  is  especially  of  importance  to  notice 
that  the  serpent  did  not  approach  or  address  Adam,  but  all  his  attempts  were 
directed  against  Eve,  and  it  was  through  her  that  the  serpent  caused  injury 
and  death  to  Adam.  The  greatest  hatred  exists  between  the  serpent  and 
Eve,  and  between  his  seed  and  her  seed  ;  her  seed  being  undoubtedly  also  the 
seed  of  man.  More  remarkable  still  is  the  way  in  which  the  serpent  is  joined 
to  Eve,  or  rather  his  seed  to  her  seed  ;  the  head  of  the  one  touches  the  heel 
of  the  other.  Eve  defeats  the  serpent  by  crushing  its  head,  whilst  the  serpent 
defeats  her  by  wounding  her  heel.     This  is  likevdse  clear. 

The  following  is  also  a  remarkable  passage,  most  absurd  in  its  literal  sense ; 
but  as  an  allegory  it  contains  wonderful  wisdom,  and  fully  agrees  with  real 
facts,  as  will  be  found  by  those  who  understand  all  the  chapters  of  this  trea- 
tise. When  the  serpent  came  to  Eve  he  infected  her  with  poison ;  the 
Israelites,  who  stood  at  Mount  Sinai,  removed  that  poison ;  idolaters,  who 
did  not  stand  at  Mount  Sinai,  have  not  got  rid  of  it.  Note  this  likewise. 
Again  they  said :  "  The  tree  of  life  extends  over  an  area  of  five  hundred 
years'  journey,  and  it  is  from  beneath  it  that  all  the  waters  of  the  creation 
sprang  forth  " ;  and  they  added  the  explanation  that  this  measure  referred 
to  the  thickness  of  its  body,  and  not  to  the  extent  of  its  branches,  for  they 
continue  thus :  "  Not  the  extent  of  the  branches  thereof,  but  the  stem 
thereof  [korato,  lit.,  '  its  beam,'  signifying  here  '  its  stem ']  has  a  thickness  of 
five  hundred  years'  journey."  This  is  now  sufficiently  clear.  Again  :  "  God 
has  never  shown  the  tree  of  knowledge  [of  good  and  evil]  to  man,  nor  will 
He  ever  show  it."  This  is  correct,  for  it  must  be  so  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  Universe.  Another  noteworthy  saying  is  this :  "  And  the  Lord  God 
took  the  man,  i.e.,  raised  him,  and  placed  him  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,"  i.e.,  He 
gave  him  rest.  The  words  "  He  took  him,"  "  He  gave  him,"  have  no  refer- 
ence to  position  in  space,  but  they  indicate  his  position  in  rank  among  tran- 
sient beings,  and  the  prominent  character  of  his  existence.  Remarkable  and 
noteworthy  is  the  great  wisdom  contained  in  the  names  of  Adam,  Cain,  and 
Abel,  and  in  the  fact  that  it  was  Cain  who  slew  Abel  in  the  field,  that  both 
of  them  perished,  although  the  murderer  had  some  respite,  and  that  the 
existence  of  mankind  is  due  to  Seth  alone.  Comp.  "  For  God  has  appointed 
me  another  seed  "  (iv.  25).     This  has  proved  true. 

It  is  also  necessary  to  understand  and  consider  the  words,  "  And    Adam 


2i8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

gave  names "  (ii.  20)  ;    here  it  is  indicated  that  languages  are  conventional, 
and  that  they  are  not  natural,  as  has  been  assumed  by  some.     We  must  also 
consider  the  four  different  terms  employed  in  expressing  the  relations  of 
the  heavens  to  God,  bore  (Creator),  'oseh  (Maker),  koneh  (Possessor),  and  el 
(God).     Comp.  "  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth  "  (i.  i) ;    "  In  the 
day  that  God  vtade  the  earth  and  the  heavens  "  (ii.  4)  ;   "  Possessor  of  heaven 
and  earth"  (xiv.  19);    "  Goi  of  the  Universe"  (xxi.  31);    "The  God  of 
heaven  and  the  God  of  the  earth  "  (xxiv.  3).     As  to  the  verbs,  konen,  "  he 
established,"  tafah,  "  he  spanned,"  and  natah,  "  he  stretched  out,"  occurring 
in  the  following  passages,  "  Which  thou  hast  established  "  (Ps.  viii.  4),  "  My 
right  hand  hath  spanned  the  heavens"  (Isa.  xviii.  13),  "Who  stretchest  out 
the  heavens  "  (Ps.  civ.  2),  they  are  included  in  the  term  'asah  ("  he  made  ")  ; 
the  verb  yazar,  "  he  formed,"  does  not  occur  in  reference  to  the  heavens. 
According  to  my  opinion  the  verb  yazar  denotes  to  make  a  form,  a  shape, 
or  any  other  accident  (for  form  and  shape  are  likewise  accidents).     It  is 
therefore  said,  yozer  or,  "  Who  formeth  the  light  "  (Isa.  xiv.  7),  light  being 
an  accident;   yoz.er  harim,  "That  formeth  the  mountains"  (Amos   iv.  13), 
i.e.,  that  gave  them  their  shape.     In  the  same  sense  the  verb  is  used  in  the 
passage,  "  And  the  Lord  God  formed  (va-yizer)  all  the  beasts,"  etc.  (Gen. 
ii.  7).     But  in  reference  to  the  Universe,  viz.,  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
which  comprises  the  totality  of  the  Creation,  Scripture  employs  the  verb 
bara,  which  we  explain  as  denoting  he  produced  something  from  nothing ; 
also  'asah  ("  he  made  "),  on  account  of  the  general  forms  or  natural  properties 
of  the  things  which  were  given  to  them  ;  kanah,  "  he  possessed,"  because  God 
rules  over  them  like  a  master  over  his  servants.     For  this  reason  He  is  also 
called,  "The  Lord  of  the  whole  earth"  (Jos.  iii.  11-13);    ha-adon,    "the 
Lord  "  (Exod.  xx.,  iii.  17).     But  although  none  can  be  a  master  unless   there 
exists  something  that  is  in  his  possession,  this  attribute  cannot    be  considered 
to  imply  the  belief  in  the  eternal  existence  of  a  materia  prima,  since  the  verbs 
bara,  "  he  created,"  and  'asah,  "  he  made,"  are  also  employed  in  reference  to 
the  heavens.     The  Creator  is  called  the  God  of  the  heavens  and  the  God  of 
the  Universe,  on  account  of  the  relations  between  Him  and  the  heavens ; 
He  governs,  and  they  are  governed  ;  the  word  elohim  does  not  signify  "  mas- 
ter "  in  the  sense  of  "  owner  "  ;  it  expresses  the  relation  between  His  position 
in  the  totality  of  existing  beings,  and  the  position  of  the  heavens  or  the  Uni- 
verse ;  He  is  God,  not  they,  i.e.,  not  the  heavens.     Note  this. 

This,  together  with  those  explanations  which  we  have  given,  and  which  we 
intend  to  give,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  may  suffice,  considering  the  object 
of  this  treatise  and  the  capacity  of  the  reader. 

CHAPTER  XXXI 

It  is  perhaps  clear  why  the  laws  concerning  Sabbath  are  so  severe,  that  their 
transgression  is  visited  with  death  by  stoning,  and  that  the  greatest  of  the 
prophets  put  a  person  to  death  for  breaking  the  Sabbath.  The  command- 
ment of  the  Sabbath  is  the  third  from  the  commandment  concerning  the 
existence  and  the  unity  of  God.  For  the  commandment  not  to  worship  any 
other  being  is  merely  an  explanation  of  the  first.  You  know  already  from 
wliat  I  have  said,  that  no  opinions  retain  their  vitality  except  those  which  are 


ON    PROPHECY  210 

confirmed,  published,  and  by  certain  actions  constantly  revived  among  the 
people.  Therefore  we  are  told  in  the  Law  to  honour  this  day  ;  in  order  to 
confirm  thereby  the  principle  of  Creation  which  will  spread  in  the  world, 
when  all  peoples  keep  Sabbath  on  the  same  day.  For  when  the  question  is 
asked,  why  this  is  done,  the  answer  is  given  :  "  For  in  six  days  the  Lord  hath 
made,"  etc.  (Exod.  xx.  ii).  Two  different  reasons  are  given  for  this  com- 
mandment, because  of  two  different  objects.  In  the  Decalogue  in  Kxodus 
the  following  reason  is  given  for  distinguishing  the  Sabbath  :  "  For  in  six 
days,"  etc.  But  in  Deuteronomy  (chap.  v.  15)  the  reason  is  given  :  "And 
thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  hast  been  a  slave  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  etc., 
therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee,"  etc.  This  difference  can 
easily  be  explained.  In  the  former,  the  cause  of  the  honour  and  distinction 
of  the  day  is  given  ;  comp.  "  Therefore  the  Lord  hath  blessed  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  and  sanctified  it  "  (Exod.  xx.  10),  and  the  cause  for  this  is,  "  For  in 
six  days,"  etc.  But  the  fact  that  God  has  given  us  the  law  of  the  Sabbath 
and  commanded  us  to  keep  it,  is  the  consequence  of  our  having  been  slaves ; 
for  then  our  work  did  not  depend  on  our  will,  nor  could  we  choose  the  time 
for  it ;  and  we  could  not  rest.  Thus  God  commanded  us  to  abstain  from 
work  on  the  Sabbath,  and  to  rest,  for  two  purposes ;  namely,  (i)  That  wc 
might  confirm  the  true  theory,  that  of  the  Creation,  which  at  once  and 
clearly  leads  to  the  theory  of  the  existence  of  God.  (2)  That  we  might 
remember  how  kind  God  has  been  in  freeing  us  from  the  burden  of  the  EgyP' 
tians. — The  Sabbath  is  therefore  a  double  blessing  :  it  gives  us  correct  notions, 
and  also  promotes  the  well-being  of  our  bodies. 

CHAPTER  XXXII 

There  are  as  many  different  opinions  concerning  Prophecy  as  concerning 
the  Eternity  or  Non-Eternity  of  the  Universe.  For  we  have  shown  that 
those  who  assume  the  existence  of  God  as  proved  may  be  divided  into  three 
classes,  according  to  the  view  they  take  of  the  question,  whether  the  Universe 
is  eternal  or  not.  Similarly  there  are  three  different  opinions  on  Prophecy. 
I  will  not  notice  the  view  of  the  Atheist ;  he  does  not  believe  in  the  Existence 
of  God,  much  less  in  Prophecy ;  but  I  will  content  myself  with  discussing 
the  various  opinions  [on  Prophecy]  held  by  those  who  believe  in  God. 

1.  Among  those  who  believe  in  Prophecy,  and  even  among  our  coreligion- 
ists, there  are  some  ignorant  people  who  think  as  follows  :  God  selects  any 
person  He  pleases,  inspires  him  with  the  spirit  of  Prophecy,  and  entrusts  him 
with  a  mission.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  that  person  be  wise  or 
stupid,  old  or  young  ;  provided  he  be,  to  some  extent,  morally  good.  For 
these  people  have  not  yet  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain  tliat  God  might  also 
inspire  a  wicked  person  with  His  spirit.  They  admit  that  this  is  impossible, 
unless  God  has  previously  caused  him  to  improve  his  ways. 

2.  The  philosophers  hold  that  prophecy  is  a  certain  faculty  of  man  in  a 
state  of  perfection,  which  can  only  be  obtained  by  study.  Although  the 
faculty  is  common  to  the  whole  race,  yet  it  is  not  fully  developed  in  each 
individual,  either  on  account  of  the  individual's  defective  constitution,  or 
on  account  of  some  other  external  cause.  This  is  the  case  with  every  faculty 
common  to  a  class.     It  is  only  brought  to  a  state  of  perfection  in  some  indi- 


220  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

viduals,  and  not  in  all ;  but  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  not  be  perfect  in 
some  individual  of  the  class  ;  and  if  the  perfection  is  of  such  a  nature  that 
it  can  only  be  produced  by  an  agent,  such  an  agent  must  exist.  Accordingly, 
it  is  impossible  that  an  ignorant  person  should  be  a  prophet ;  or  that  a  person 
being  no  prophet  in  the  evening,  should,  unexpectedly  on  the  following 
morning,  find  himself  a  prophet,  as  if  prophecy  were  a  thing  that  could  be 
found  unintentionally.  But  if  a  person,  perfect  in  his  intellectual  and  moral 
faculties,  and  also  perfect,  as  far  as  possible,  in  his  imaginative  faculty,  pre- 
pares himself  in  the  manner  which  wall  be  described,  he  must  become  a 
prophet ;  for  prophecy  is  a  natural  faculty  of  man.  It  is  impossible  that  a 
man  who  has  the  capacity  for  prophecy  should  prepare  himself  for  it  without 
attaining  it ,  just  as  it  is  impossible  that  a  person  with  a  healthy  constitution 
should  be  fed  well,  and  yet  not  properly  assimilate  his  food  ;  and  the  like. 

3.  The  third  view  is  that  which  is  taught  in  Scripture,  and  which  forms 
one  of  the  principles  of  our  religion.  It  coincides  with  the  opinion  of  the 
philosophers  in  all  points  except  one.  For  we  believe  that,  even  if  one  has 
the  capacity  for  prophecy,  and  has  duly  prepared  himelf,  it  may  yet  happen 
that  he  does  not  actually  prophesy.  It  is  in  that  case  the  will  of  God  [that 
withholds  from  him  the  use  of  the  faculty].  According  to  my  opinion,  this 
fact  is  as  exceptional  as  any  other  miracle,  and  acts  in  the  same  way.  For 
the  laws  of  Nature  demand  that  every  one  should  be  a  prophet,  who  has  a 
proper  physical  constitution,  and  has  been  duly  prepared  as  regards  educa- 
tion and  training.  If  such  a  person  is  not  a  prophet,  he  is  in  the  same  position 
as  a  person  who,  like  Jeroboam  (l  Kings  xiii.  4),  is  deprived  of  the  use  of  his 
hand,  or  of  his  eyes,  as  was  the  case  with  the  army  of  Syria,  in  the  history  of 
Elisha  (2  Kings  vi.  18).  As  for  the  principle  which  I  laid  dovvm,  that  pre- 
paration and  perfection  of  moral  and  rational  faculties  are  the  sine  qua  non, 
our  Sages  say  exactly  the  same  :  "  The  spirit  of  prophecy  only  rests  upon 
persons  who  are  wise,  strong,  and  rich."  We  have  explained  these  words 
in  our  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah,  and  in  our  large  work.  We  stated  there 
that  the  Sons  of  the  Prophets  were  constantly  engaged  in  preparation.  That 
those  who  have  prepared  themselves  may  stiU  be  prevented  from  being  pro- 
phets, may  be  inferred  from  the  history  of  Baruch,  the  son  of  Ncrijah  ;  for 
he  followed  Jeremiah,  who  prepared  and  instructed  him  ;  and  yet  he  hoped 
in  vain  for  prophecy ;  comp.,  "  I  am  weary  with  my  sighing,  and  rest  have 
I  not  found."  He  was  then  told  through  Jeremiah,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 
Thus  shalt  thou  say  to  him.  Thou  seekest  for  thee  great  things,  do  not  seek  " 
(Jer.  xlv.  5).  It  may  perhaps  be  assumed  that  prophecy  is  here  described 
as  a  thing  "  too  great  "  for  Baruch.  So  also  the  fact  that  "  her  prophets  did 
not  find  visions  from  the  Lord  "  (Lam.  ii.  4),  may  be  considered  as  the  result 
of  the  exile  of  her  prophets,  as  will  be  explained  (chap,  xxxvi.).  There  are, 
however,  numerous  passages  in  Scripture  as  well  as  in  the  writings  of  our 
Sages,  which  support  the  principle  that  it  depends  chiefly  on  the  will  of  God 
who  is  to  prophesy,  and  at  what  time ;  and  that  He  only  selects  the  best  and 
the  wisest.  We  hold  that  fools  and  ignorant  people  are  unfit  for  this  dis- 
tinction. It  is  as  impossible  for  any  one  of  these  to  prophesy  as  it  is  for  an 
ass  or  a  frog ;  for  prophecy  is  impossible  without  study  and  training  ;  when 
these  have  created  the  possibility,  then  it  depends  on  the  will  of  God  whether 
the  possibility  is  to  be  turned  into  reality.     We  must  not  be  misled  by  the 


ON    PROPHECY 


221 


words  of  Jeremiah  (i.  5),  "  Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  womb  I  knew  thcc, 
and  before  thou  earnest  forth  from  the  womb  I  have  sanctified  ilicc  "  •  for 
this  is  the  case  with  all  prophets  ;  there  must  be  a  physical  preparation  from 
the  beginning  of  their  existence,  as  will  be  explained.  As  to  the  words, 
"  For  I  am  young  "  {ibid.  ver.  6),  it  is  well  known  that  the  pious  Joseph,' 
when  he  was  thirty  years  old,  is  called  by  the  Hebrew  "  young  "  (naar)  • 
also  Joshua,  when  he  was  nearly  sixty  years  old.  For  the  statement,  "  and  his 
minister  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  was  young,"  occurs  in  the  account  of  the 
Golden  Calf  (Exod.  xxxiii.  ii).  Moses  was  then  eighty-one  years  old,  he 
lived  one  hundred  and  twenty  years ;  Joshua,  who  survived  him  fourteen 
years,  lived  one  hundred  and  ten  years  and  must  consequently  have  been 
at  least  fifty-seven  years  old  at  the  time  when  the  Golden  Calf  was 
made,  and  yet  he  is  called  nwar,  "  young."  Nor  must  we  be  misled  by 
prophecies  like  the  following  :  "  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  over  all  flesli, 
and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy  "  ;  since  it  is  distinctly 
stated  what  is  meant  by  "  prophesy "  in  this  place,  viz.,  "  Your  old 
men  will  dream  dreams,  your  young  men  shall  see  visions."  For  we  call  also 
prophets  all  those  who  reveal  something  unknown  by  surmises,  or  conjec- 
tures, or  correct  inferences.  Thus  "  prophets  of  Baal  "  and  "  of  Asherah  " 
are  mentioned  in  Scripture.  And  God  says,  "  If  there  arise  among  you  a 
prophet  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,"  etc.  (Deut.  xiii.  i).  As  to  the  revelation 
on  Mount  Sinai,  all  saw  the  great  fire,  and  heard  the  fearful  thunderings, 
that  caused  such  an  extraordinary  terror  ;  but  only  those  of  them  who  were 
duly  qualified  were  prophetically  inspired,  each  one  according  to  his  capa- 
cities. Therefore  it  is  said,  "  Come  up  unto  the  Lord,  thou  and  Aaron, 
Nadab  and  Abihu."  Moses  rose  to  the  highest  degree  of  prophecy,  according 
to  the  words,  "  And  Moses  alone  shall  come  near  the  Lord."  Aaron  was 
below  him,  Nadab  and  Abihu  below  Aaron,  and  the  seventy  elders  below 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  and  the  rest  below  the  latter,  each  one  according  to  his 
degree  of  perfection.  Similarly  our  Sages  wrote  :  Moses  had  his  own  place 
and  Aaron  his  own.  Since  we  have  touched  upon  the  revelation  on  Mount 
Sinai,  wc  will  point  out  in  a  separate  chapter  what  may  be  inferred  as  regards 
the  nature  of  that  event,  both  from  the  Scriptural  text,  in  accordance  with 
reasonable  interpretation,  and  from  the  words  of  our  Sages. 

CHAPTER  XXXni 

It  is  clear  to  me  that  what  Moses  experienced  at  the  revelation  on  Mount 
Sinai  was  different  from  that  which  was  experienced  by  all  the  other  Israel- 
ites, for  Moses  alone  was  addressed  by  God,  and  for  this  reason  the  second 
person  singular  is  used  in  the  Ten  Commandments  ;  Moses  then  went  down 
to  the  foot  of  the  mount  and  told  his  fellow-men  what  he  had  heard.  Comp., 
"I  stood  between  the  Lord  and  you  at  that  time  to  tell  you  the  word  of  the 
Lord  "  (Deut.  v.  5).  Again,  "  Moses  spake,  and  God  answered  him  with  a 
loud  voice  "  (Exod,  xix.  19).  In  the  Mechilta  our  Sages  say  distinctly  that 
he  brought  to  them  every  word  as  he  had  heard  it.  Furthermore,  the  words, 
"  In  order  that  the  people  hear  when  I  speak  with  thee  "  (Exod.  xix.  9), 
show  that  God  spoke  to  Moses,  and  the  people  only  heard  the  mighty  sound, 
not  distinct  words.     It  is  to  the  perception  of  this  mighty  sound  that  Scrip- 

I 


222  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ture  refers  in  the  passage,  "  When  ye  hear  the  sound  "  (Deut.  v.  20) ;  again 
it  is  stated,  "  You  heard  a  sound  of  words  "  (ibid.  iv.  12),  and  it  is  not  said 
"  You  heard  words  "  ;  and  even  where  the  hearing  of  the  words  is  men- 
tioned, only  the  perception  of  the  sound  is  meant.  It  was  only  Moses  that 
heard  the  words,  and  he  reported  them  to  the  people.  This  is  apparent  from 
Scripture,  and  from  the  utterances  of  our  Sages  in  general.  There  is,  how- 
ever, an  opinion  of  our  Sages  frequently  expressed  in  the  Midrashim,  and 
found  also  in  the  Talmud,  to  this  effect :  The  Israelites  heard  the  first  and 
the  second  commandments  from  God,  i.e.,  they  learnt  the  truth  of  the 
principles  contained  in  these  two  commandments  in  the  same  manner  as 
Moses,  and  not  through  Moses.  For  these  two  principles,  the  existence  of 
God  and  His  Unity,  can  be  arrived  at  by  means  of  reasoning,  and  whatever 
can  be  established  by  proof  is  known  by  the  prophet  in  the  same  way  as  by 
any  other  person  ;  he  has  no  advantage  in  this  respect.  These  two  principles 
were  not  known  through  prophecy  alone.  Comp.,  "  Thou  hast  been  shown 
to  know  that,"  etc.  (Deut.  iv.  34).  But  the  rest  of  the  commandments  are 
of  an  ethical  and  authoritative  character,  and  do  not  contain  [truths]  per- 
ceived by  the  intellect.  Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  by  our  Sages 
on  this  subject,  we  infer  from  Scripture  as  well  as  from  the  words  of  our 
Sages,  that  the  Israelites  heard  on  that  occasion  a  certain  sound  which  Moses 
understood  to  proclaim  the  first  two  commandments,  and  through  Moses 
all  other  Israelites  learnt  them  when  he  in  intelligible  sounds  repeated  them 
to  the  people.  Our  Sages  mention  this  view,  and  support  it  by  the  verse, 
"God  hath  spoken  once;  twice  have  I  heard  this"  (Ps.  Ixii.  ll).  They 
state  distinctly,  in  the  beginning  of  Midrash  Ilazita,  that  the  Israelites 
did  not  hear  any  other  command  directly  from  God  ;  comp.  "  A  loud  voice, 
and  it  was  not  heard  again  "  (Deut.  v.  19).  It  was  after  this  first  sound  was 
heard  that  the  people  were  seized  with  the  fear  and  terror  described  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  that  they  said,  "  Behold  the  Lord  our  God  has  shown  us,  etc.,  and 
now  why  shall  we  die,  etc.  Come  thou  near,"  etc.  Then  Moses,  the  most 
distinguished  of  all  mankind,  came  the  second  time,  received  successively  the 
other  commandments,  and  came  down  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain  to  pro- 
claim them  to  the  people,  whilst  the  mighty  phenomena  continued  ;  they 
saw  the  fire,  they  heard  the  sounds,  which  were  those  of  thunder  and  light- 
ning during  a  storm,  and  the  loud  sound  of  the  shofar  ;  and  all  that  is  said  of 
the  many  sounds  heard  at  that  time,  e.g.,  in  the  verse,  "  and  all  the  people 
perceived  the  sounds,"  etc.,  refers  to  the  sound  of  the  shofar,  thunder,  and 
similar  sounds.  But  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  that  is,  the  voice  created  for 
that  purpose,  which  was  understood  to  include  the  diverse  commandments, 
was  only  heard  once,  as  is  declared  in  the  Law,  and  has  been  clearly  stated 
by  our  Sages  in  the  places  which  I  have  indicated  to  you.  When  the  people 
heard  this  voice  their  soul  left  them  ;  and  in  this  voice  they  perceived  the 
first  two  commandments.  It  must,  however,  be  noticed  that  the  people 
did  not  understand  the  voice  in  the  same  degree  as  Moses  did.  I  will  point 
out  to  you  this  important  fact,  and  show  you  that  it  was  a  matter  of  tradition 
with  the  nation,  and  well  known  by  our  Sages.  For,  as  a  rule,  Onkelos  ren- 
ders the  word  va-yedahhcr  by  u-mallel  ("  and  God  spake  ")  ;  this  is  also  the 
case  with  this  word  in  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Exodus, 
but  the  words  ve-al  yedabber  immanu  elnhim,  "  let  not  God  speak  to  us  " 


ON  PROPHECY  223 

(Exod.  XX.  19),  addressed  by  the  people  to  Moses,  is  rendered  vela  yitmalUl 
immanu  min  kodam  adonai  ("  Let  not  aught  be  spoken  to  us  by  the  Ix)rd  "). 
Onkelos  makes  thus  the  same  distinction  which  we  made.  You  know  that 
according  to  the  Talmud  Onkelos  received  all  these  excellent  interpretations 
directly  from  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Joshua,  the  wisest  men  in  Israel.  Note  it, 
and  remember  it,  for  it  is  impossible  for  any  person  to  expound  the  revela- 
tion on  Mount  Sinai  more  fully  than  our  Sages  have  done,  since  it  is  one  of 
the  secrets  of  the  Law.  It  is  very  difficult  to  have  a  true  conception  of  the 
events,  for  there  has  never  been  before,  nor  will  there  ever  be  again,  any- 
thing like  it.     Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XXXIV 

The  meaning  of  the  Scriptural  passage,  "  Behold  I  will  send  an  angel  before 
thee,"  etc.  (Exod.  xxiii.  20),  is  identical  with  the  parallel  passage  in  Deutero- 
nomy which  God  is  represented  to  have  addressed  to  Moses  at  the  revelation 
on  Mount  Sinai,  namely,  "  I  will  raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their 
brethren,"  etc.  (Deut.  xviii.  18).  The  words,  "  Beware  of  him,  and  obey 
his  voice,"  etc.,  said  in  reference  to  the  angel,  prove  [that  this  passage  speaks 
of  a  prophet].  For  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  commandment  is  given  to  the 
ordinary  people,  to  whom  angels  do  not  appear  with  commandments  and 
exhortations,  and  it  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  tell  them  not  to  disobey  him. 
The  meaning  of  the  passage  quoted  above  is  this  :  God  informs  the  Israelites 
that  He  will  raise  up  for  them  a  prophet,  to  whom  an  angel  will  appear  in 
order  to  speak  to  him,  to  command  him,  and  to  exhort  him  ;  he  therefore 
cautions  them  not  to  rebel  against  this  angel,  whose  word  the  prophet  will 
communicate  to  them.  Therefore  it  is  expressly  said  in  Deuteronomy, 
"  Unto  him  ye  shall  hearken  "  (Deut.  xviii.  15)  ;  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
that  whosoever  shall  not  hearken  unto  my  words  which  he  shall  speak  in  my 
name,"  etc.  (ibid.  19).  This  is  the  explanation  of  the  words,  "  for  my  name 
is  in  him  "  (Exod.  xxiv.  21).  The  object  of  all  this  is  to  say  to  the  Israelites, 
This  great  sight  witnessed  by  you,  the  revelation  on  Mount  Sinai,  will  not 
continue  for  ever,  nor  will  it  ever  be  repeated.  Fire  and  cloud  will  not  con- 
tinually rest  over  the  tabernacle,  as  they  are  resting  now  on  it ;  but  the  towns 
will  be  conquered  for  you,  peace  will  be  secured  for  you  in  the  land,  and  you 
will  be  informed  of  what  you  have  to  do,  by  an  angel  whom  I  will  send  to  your 
prophets ;  he  will  thus  teach  you  what  to  do,  and  what  not  to  do.  Here  a 
principle  is  laid  down  which  I  have  constantly  expounded,  viz.,  that  all  pro- 
phets except  Moses  receive  the  prophecy  through  an  angel.     Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XXXV 

I  HAVE  already  described  the  four  points  in  which  the  prophecy  of  Moset 
our  Teacher  was  distinguished  from  that  of  other  prophets,  in  books 
accessible  to  every  one,  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah  (Sanhcdrin 
X.  I)  and  in  Mishneh-torah  (S.  Madd-a  I.  vii.  6);  I  have  also  adduced 
evidence  for  my  explanation,  and  shown  the  correctness  thereof.  I 
need  not  repeat  the  subject  here,  nor  is  it  included  in  the  theme  of  this 
work.  For  I  must  tell  you  that  whatever  I  say  here  of  prophecy  refers 
exclusively  to  the  form  of  the  prophecy  of  all  prophets  before  and  after 


224  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Moses.  But  as  to  the  prophecy  of  Moses  I  will  not  discuss  it  in  this  work 
with  one  single  word,  whether  directly  or  indirectly,  because,  in  my  opinion, 
the  term  prophet  is  applied  to  Moses  and  other  men  homonymously.  A 
similar  distinction,  I  think,  must  be  made  between  the  miracles  wrought  by 
Moses  and  those  wrought  by  other  prophets,  for  his  signs  are  not  of  the  same 
class  as  the  miracles  of  other  prophets.  That  his  prophecy  was  distinguished 
from  that  of  all  his  predecessors  is  proved  by  the  passage,  "  And  I  appeared 
to  Abraham,  etc.,  but  by  my  name,  the  Lord,  I  was  not  known  unto  them  " 
(Exod.  vi.  3).  We  thus  learn  that  his  prophetic  perception  was  different 
from  that  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  excelled  it ;  a  fortiori  it  must  have  excelled 
that  of  other  prophets  before  Moses.  As  to  the  distinction  of  Moses'  pro- 
phecy from  that  of  succeeding  prophets,  it  is  stated  as  a  fact,  "  And  there 
arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses,  whom  the  Lord  knew 
face  to  face  "  (Deut.  xxxiv.  lo).  It  is  thus  clear  that  his  prophetic  perception 
was  above  that  of  later  prophets  in  Israel,  who  are  "  a  kingdom  of  priests  and 
a  holy  nation,"  and  "  in  whose  midst  is  the  Lord  "  ;  much  more  is  it  above 
that  of  prophets  among  other  nations. 

The  general  distinction  between  the  wonders  of  Moses  and  those  of  other 
prophets  is  this :  The  wonders  wrought  by  prophets,  or  for  them,  are  wit- 
nessed by  a  few  individuals,  e.g.,  the  wonders  wrought  by  EHjah  and  Elisha ; 
the  king  of  Israel  is  therefore  surprised,  and  asked  Gehazi  to  describe  to  him 
the  miracles  wrought  by  Elisha  :  "  Tell  me,  I  pray  thee,  all  the  great  things 
that  Elisha  hath  done.  And  it  came  to  pass  as  he  was  telling,  etc.  And 
Gehazi  said  :  '  My  lord,  O  king,  this  is  the  woman,  and  this  is  her  son,  whom 
Elisha  restored  to  life '  "  (2  Kings  viii.  4,  5).  The  same  is  the  case  with  the 
signs  of  every  other  prophet,  except  Moses  our  Teacher.  Scripture,  there- 
fore, declares  that  no  prophet  will  ever,  like  Moses,  do  signs  publicly  in  the 
presence  of  friend  and  enemy,  of  his  followers  and  his  opponents  ;  this  is  the 
meaning  of  the  words  :  "  And  there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like 
unto  Moses,  etc.,  in  aU  the  signs  and  the  wonders,  etc.,  in  the  sight  of  all 
Israel."  Two  things  are  here  mentioned  together  ;  namely,  that  there  will 
not  arise  a  prophet  that  will  perceive  as  Moses  perceived,  or  a  prophet  that 
will  do  as  he  did  ;  then  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  signs  were  made  in  the  pre- 
sence of  Pharaoh,  all  his  servants  and  all  his  land,  the  opponents  of  Moses, 
and  also  in  the  presence  of  all  the  Israelites,  his  followers.  Comp.  "  In  the 
sight  of  all  Israel."  This  is  a  distinction  not  possessed  by  any  prophet  before 
Moses ;  nor,  as  is  correctly  foretold,  will  it  ever  be  possessed  by  another 
prophet.  We  must  not  be  misled  by  the  account  that  the  light  of  the  sun 
stood  still  certain  hours  for  Joshua,  when  "  he  said  in  the  sight  of  Israel," 
etc.  (Josh.  x.  12)  ;  for  it  is  not  said  there  "  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel,"  as  is  said 
in  reference  to  Moses.  So  also  the  miracle  of  Elijah,  at  Mount  Carmel,  was 
witnessed  only  by  a  few  people.  When  I  said  above  that  the  sun  stood  still 
certain  hours,  I  explain  the  words  "  ka-jom  tamitn  "  to  mean  "  the  longest 
possible  day,"  because  tamim  means  "  perfect,"  and  indicates  that  that  day 
appeared  to  the  people  at  Gibeon  as  their  longest  day  in  the  summer.  Your 
mind  must  comprehend  the  distinction  of  the  prophecy  and  the  wonders  of 
Moses,  ajid  understand  that  his  greatness  in  prophetic  perception  was  the 
same  as  his  power  of  producing  miracles.  If  you  further  assume  that  we  are 
unable  fully  to  comprehend  the  nature  of  this  greatness,  you  will  understand 


ON    PROPHECY  225 

that  when  I  speak,  in  the  chapters  which  follow  this,  on  prophecy  and  the 
different  classes  of  prophets,  I  only  refer  to  the  prophets  which  have  not 
attained  the  high  degree  that  Moses  attained.  This  is  what  I  dcbircd  to 
explain  in  this  chapter. 

CHAPTER  XXXVI 

Prophecy  is,  in  truth  and  reality,  an  emanation  sent  forth  by  the  Divine 
Being  through  the  medium  of  the  Active  Intellect,  in  the  first  instance  to 
man's  rational  faculty,  and  then  to  his  imaginative  faculty  ;   it  is  the  highest 
degree  and  greatest  perfection  man  can  attain  ;  it  consists  in  the  most  perfect 
development  of  the  imaginative  faculty.     Prophecy  is  a  faculty  that  cannot 
ill  any  way  be  found  in  a  person,  or  acquired   by  man,  through  a  culture ~of 
his  mental  and  moral  faculties ;    for  even  if  these  latter  were  as  good  and 
perfect  as  possible,  they  would  be  of  no  avail,  unless  they  were  combined 
with  the  highest  natural  excellence  of  the  imaginative  faculty.     You  know 
that  the  full  development  of  any  faculty  of  the  body,  such  as  the  imagination, 
depends  on  the  condition  of  the  organ,  by  means  of  which  the  faculty  acts. 
This  must  be  the  best  possible  as  regards  its  temperament  and  its  size,  and 
also  as  regards  the  purity  of  its  substance.     Any  defect  in  this  respect  cannot 
in  any  way  be  supplied  or  remedied  by  training.     For  when  any  organ  is 
defective  in  its  temperament,  proper  training  can  in  the  best  case  restore  a 
healthy  condition  to  some  extent,  but  cannot  make  such  an  organ  perfect. 
But  if  the  organ  is  defective  as  regards  size,  position,  or  as  regards  the  sub- 
stance and  the  matter  of  which  the  organ  is  formed,  there  is  no  remedy. 
You  know  all  this,  and  I  need  not  explain  it  to  you  at  length. 

Part  of  the  functions  of  the  imaginative  faculty  is,  as  you  well  know,  to 
retain  impressions  by  the  senses,  to  combine  them,  and  chicflv  to  form 
images.  The  principal  and  highest  function  is  performed  when  the  senses 
are  at  rest  and  pause  in  their  action,  for  then  it  receives,  to  some  extent, 
divine  inspiration  in  the  measure  as  it  is  predisposed  for  this  influence.  This 
is  the  nature  of  those  dreams  which  prove  true,  and  also  of  prophecy,  the  differ- 
ence being  one  of  quantity,  not  of  quality.  Thus  our  Sages  say,  that  dream  is 
the  sixtieth  part  of  prophecy  ;  and  no  such  comparison  could  be  made  between 
two  things  of  different  kinds,  for  we  cannot  say  the  perfection  of  man  is  so 
many  times  the  perfection  of  a  horse.  In  Bereshit  Rabba  (sect,  xvii.)  the 
following  saying  of  our  Sages  occurs,  "  Dream  is  the  nobeUt  (the  unripe 
fruit)  of  prophecy."  This  is  an  excellent  comparison,  for  the  unripe  fruit 
(nobelet)  is  really  the  fruit  to  some  extent,  only  it  has  fallen  from  the  tree 
before  it  was  fully  developed  and  ripe.  In  a  similar  manner  the  action  of 
the  imaginative  faculty  during  sleep  is  the  same  as  at  the  time  when  it  re- 
ceives a  prophecy,  only  in  the  first  case  it  is  not  fully  developed,  and  has  not 
yet  reached  its  highest  degree.  But  why  need  I  quote  the  words  of  our 
Sages,  when  I  can  refer  to  the  following  passage  of  Scripture  :  "  If  there  be 
among  you  a  prophet,  I,  the  Lord,  will  make  myself  known  unto  him  in  a 
vision,  in  a  dream  will  I  speak  to  him  "  (Num.  xii.  6).  Here  the  Lord  telh 
us  what  the  real  essence  of  prophecy  is,  that  it  is  a  perfection  acquired  in  a 
dream  or  in  a  vision  (the  original  tnauh  is  a  noun  derived  from  the  verb  raah)  ; 
the  imaginative  faculty  acquires  such  an  efficiency  in  its  action  that  it  sees 


226  GUIDE    FOR    THE   PERPLEXED 

the  thing  as  if  it  came  from  without,  and  perceives  it  as  if  through  the  medium 
of  bodily  senses.  These  two  modes  of  prophecy,  vision  and  dream,  include 
all  its  different  degrees.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  thing  which  engages 
greatly  and  earnestly  man's  attention  whilst  he  is  awake  and  in  the  full 
possession  of  his  senses  forms  during  his  sleep  the  object  of  the  action  of  his 
imaginative  faculty.  Imagination  is  then  only  influenced  by  the  intellect 
in  so  far  as  it  is  predisposed  for  such  influence.  It  would  be  quite  useless  to 
illustrate  this  by  a  simile,  or  to  explain  it  fully,  as  it  is  clear,  and  every  one 
knows  it.  It  is  like  the  action  of  the  senses,  the  existence  of  which  no  person 
with  common  sense  would  ever  deny.  After  these  introductory  remarks  you 
wall  understand  that  a  person  must  satisfy  the  following  conditions  before  he 
can  become  a  prophet :  The  substance  of  the  brain  must  from  the  very 
beginning  be  in  the  most  perfect  condition  as  regards  purity  of  matter,  com- 
position of  its  different  parts,  size  and  position  ;  no  part  of  his  body  must 
suffer  from  ill-health  ;  he  must  in  addition  have  studied  and  acquired  wis- 
dom, so  that  his  rational  faculty  passes  from  a  state  of  potentiality  to  that  of 
actuality ;  his  intellect  must  be  as  developed  and  perfect  as  human  intellect 
can  be  ;  his  passions  pure  and  equally  balanced  ;  all  his  desires  must  aim  at 
obtaining  a  knowledge  of  the  hidden  laws  and  causes  that  are  in  force  in 
the  Universe  ;  his  thoughts  must  be  engaged  in  lofty  matters ;  his  attention 
directed  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  the  consideration  of  His  works,  and  of  that 
which  he  must  believe  in  this  respect.  There  must  be  an  absence  of  the 
lower  desires  and  appetites,  of  the  seeking  after  pleasure  in  eating,  drinking, 
and  cohabitation  ;  and,  in  short,  every  pleasure  connected  vdth  the  sense  of 
touch.  (Aristotle  correctly  says  that  this  sense  is  a  disgrace  to  us,  since  we 
possess  it  only  in  virtue  of  our  being  animals ;  and  it  does  not  include  any 
specifically  human  element,  whilst  enjoyments  connected  with  other  senses, 
as  smell,  hearing,  and  sight,  though  likewise  of  a  material  nature,  may  some- 
times include  [intellectual]  pleasure,  appealing  to  man  as  man,  according  to 
Aristotle.  This  remark,  although  forming  no  part  of  our  subject,  is  not 
superfluous,  for  the  thoughts  of  the  most  renowned  wise  men  are  to  a  great 
extent  affected  by  the  pleasures  of  this  sense,  and  filled  with  a  desire  for  them. 
And  yet  people  are  surprised  that  these  scholars  do  not  prophesy,  if  pro- 
phesying be  nothing  but  a  certain  degree  in  the  natural  development  of  man.) 
It  is  further  necessary  to  suppress  every  thought  or  desire  for  unreal  power 
and  dominion ;  that  is  to  say,  for  victory,  increase  of  followers,  acquisition 
of  honour,  and  service  from  the  people  without  any  ulterior  object.  On 
the  contrary,  the  multitude  must  be  considered  according  to  their  true 
worth  ;  some  of  them  are  undoubtedly  like  domesticated  cattle,  and  others 
like  wdld  beasts,  and  these  only  engage  the  mind  of  the  perfect  and  distin- 
guished man  in  so  far  as  he  desires  to  guard  himself  from  injury,  in  case  of 
contact  with  them,  and  to  derive  some  benefit  from  them  when  necessary.  A 
man  who  satisfies  these  conditions,  whilst  his  fully  developed  imagination  is 
in  action,  influenced  by  the  Active  Intellect  according  to  his  mental  training, 
— such  a  person  will  undoubtedly  perceive  nothing  but  things  very  extra- 
ordinary and  divine,  and  see  nothing  but  God  and  His  angels.  His  know- 
ledge wiU  only  include  that  which  is  real  knowledge,  and  his  thought  will 
only  be  directed  to  such  general  principles  as  would  tend  to  improve  the 
social  relations  between  man  and  man. 


ON  PROPHECY  227 

We  have  thus  described  three  kinds  of  perfection:  mental  perfection 
acquired  by  training,  perfection  of  the  natural  constitution  of  the  imagi- 
native faculty,  and  moral  perfection  produced  by  the  suppression  of  every 
thought  of  bodily  pleasures,  and  of  every  kind  of  foolish  or  evil  ambition. 
These  qualities  are,  as  is  well  known,  possessed  by  the  wise  men  in  different 
degrees,  and  the  degrees  of  prophetic  faculty  vary  in  accordance  with  this 
difference.  Faculties  of  the  body  are,  as  you  know,  at  one  time  weak, 
wearied,  and  corrupted,  at  others  in  a  healthy  state.  Imagination  is  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  faculties  of  the  body.  You  find,  therefore,  that  prophets 
are  deprived  of  the  faculty  of  prophesying  when  they  mourn,  are  angry,  or 
are  similarly  affected.  Our  Sages  say.  Inspiration  does  not  come  upon  a 
prophet  when  he  is  sad  or  languid.  This  is  the  reason  why  Jacob  did  not 
receive  any  revelation  during  the  period  of  his  mourning,  when  his  imagi- 
nation was  engaged  with  the  loss  of  Joseph.  The  same  was  the  case  with 
Moses,  when  he  was  in  a  state  of  depression  through  the  multitude  of  his 
troubles,  which  lasted  from  the  murmurings  of  the  Israelites  in  consequence 
of  the  evil  report  of  the  spies,  till  the  death  of  the  warriors  of  that  gener- 
ation. He  received  no  message  of  God,  as  he  used  to  do,  even  though  he  did 
not  receive  prophetic  inspiration  through  the  medium  of  the  imaginative 
faculty,  but  directly  through  the  intellect.  We  have  mentioned  it  several 
times  that  Moses  did  not,  like  other  prophets,  speak  in  similes.  This  will  be 
further  explained  (chap,  xlv.),  but  it  is  not  the  subject  of  the  present  chapter. 
There  were  also  persons  who  prophesied  for  a  certain  time  and  then  left  off 
altogether,  something  occurring  that  caused  them  to  discontinue  prophesy- 
ing. The  same  circumstance,  prevalence  of  sadness  and  dulncss,  was  un- 
doubtedly the  direct  cause  of  the  interruption  of  prophecy  during  the  exile  ; 
for  can  there  be  any  greater  misfortune  for  man  than  this :  to  be  a  slave 
bought  for  money  in  the  service  of  ignorant  and  voluptuous  masters,  and 
powerless  against  them  as  they  unite  in  themselves  the  absence  of  true  know- 
ledge and  the  force  of  all  animal  desires  .?  Such  an  evil  state  has  been  pro- 
phesied to  us  in  the  words,  "  They  shall  run  to  and  fro  to  seek  the  word  of 
God,  but  shall  not  find  it"  (Amos  viii.  12)  ;  ''  Her  king  and  her  princes  arc 
among  the  nations,  the  law  is  no  more,  her  prophets  also  find  no  vision  from 
the  Lord  "  (Lam.  ii.  9).  This  is  a  real  fact,  and  the  cause  is  evident ;  the 
pre-requisites  [of  prophecy]  have  been  lost.  In  the  Messianic  period — may 
it  soon  commence — prophecy  will  therefore  again  be  in  our  midst,  as  has 
been  promised  by  God. 

CHAPTER  XXXVII 

It  is  necessary  to  consider  the  nature  of  the  divine  influence,  which  enables 
us  to  think,  and  gives  us  the  various  degrees  of  intelligence.  For  this  influence 
may  reach  a  person  only  in  a  small  measure,  and  in  exactly  the  same  proportion 
would  then  be  his  intellectual  condition,  whilst  it  may  reach  another  person 
in  such  a  measure  that,  in  addition  to  his  o^-n  perfection,  he  can  be  the  means 
of  perfection  for  others.  The  same  relation  may  be  observed  throughout  the 
whole  Universe.  There  are  some  beings  so  perfect  that  they  can  govern 
other  beings,  but  there  are  also  beings  that  are  only  perfect  in  so  far  as  tliey  can 
govern  themselves  and  cannot  influence  other  beings.     In  some  cases  the 


228  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

influence  of  the  [Active]  Intellect  reaches  only  the  logical  and  not  the  ima- 
ginative faculty  ;  either  on  account  of  the  insufficiency  of  that  influence,  or 
on  account  of  a  defect  in  the  constitution  of  the  imaginative  faculty,  and  the 
consequent  inability  of  the  latter  to  receive  that  influence  :  this  is  the  con- 
dition of  wise  men  or  philosophers.  If,  how^ever,  the  imaginative  faculty 
is  naturally  in  the  most  perfect  condition,  this  influence  may,  as  has  been 
explained  by  us  and  by  other  philosophers,  reach  both  his  logical  and  his  imagi- 
native faculties  :  this  is  the  case  with  prophets.  But  it  happens  sometimes 
that  the  influence  only  reaches  the  imaginative  faculty  on  account  of  the 
insufficiency  of  the  logical  faculty,  arising  either  from  a  natural  defect,  or 
from  a  neglect  in  training.  This  is  the  case  with  statesmen,  lawgivers, 
diviners,  charmers,  and  men  that  have  true  dreams,  or  do  wonderful  things 
by  strange  means  and  secret  arts,  though  they  are  not  wise  men  ;  all  these 
belong  to  the  third  class.  It  is  further  necessary  to  understand  that  some 
persons  belonging  to  the  third  class  perceive  scenes,  dreams,  and  confused 
images,  when  awake,  in  the  form  of  a  prophetic  vision.  They  then  believe 
that  they  are  prophets ;  they  wonder  that  they  perceive  visions,  and  think 
that  they  have  acquired  wisdom  without  training.  They  fall  into  grave 
errors  as  regards  important  philosophical  principles,  and  see  a  strange  mixture 
of  true  and  imaginary  things.  All  this  is  the  consequence  of  the  strength 
of  their  imaginative  faculty,  and  the  weakness  of  their  logical  faculty, 
which  has  not  developed,  and  has  not  passed  from  potentiality  to  ac- 
tuality. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  members  of  each  class  differ  greatly  from  each 
other.  Each  of  the  first  two  classes  is  again  subdivided,  and  contains  two 
sections,  namely,  those  who  receive  the  influence  only  as  far  as  is  necessary 
for  their  own  perfection,  and  those  who  receive  it  in  so  great  a  measure  that 
it  suffices  for  their  own  perfection  and  that  of  others.  A  member  of  the  first 
class,  the  virise  men,  may  have  his  mind  influenced  either  only  so  far,  that  he 
is  enabled  to  search,  to  understand,  to  know,  and  to  discern,  without  attempt- 
ing to  be  a  teacher  or  an  author,  having  neither  the  desire  nor  the  capacity  ; 
but  he  may  also  be  influenced  to  such  a  degree  that  he  becomes  a  teacher  and 
an  author.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  second  class,  A  person  may  re- 
ceive a  prophecy  enabling  him  to  perfect  himself  but  not  others ;  but  he 
may  also  receive  such  a  prophecy  as  would  compel  him  to  address  his  fellow- 
men,  teach  them,  and  benefit  them  through  his  perfection.  It  is  clear  that, 
without  this  second  degree  of  perfection,  no  books  would  have  been  written, 
nor  would  any  prophets  have  persuaded  others  to  know  the  truth.  For  a 
scholar  does  not  wTite  a  book  with  the  object  to  teach  himself  what  he  already 
knows.  But  the  characteristic  of  the  intellect  is  this :  what  the  intellect  of 
one  receives  is  transmitted  to  another,  and  so  on,  till  a  person  is  reached  that 
can  only  himself  be  perfected  by  such  an  influence,  but  is  unable  to  com- 
municate it  to  others,  as  has  been  explained  in  some  chapters  of  this  treatise 
(chap.  xi.).  It  is  further  the  nature  of  this  element  in  man  that  he  who  pos- 
sesses an  additional  degree  of  that  influence  is  compelled  to  address  his  fellow- 
men,  under  all  circumstances,  whether  he  is  listened  to  or  not,  even  if  he 
injures  himself  thereby.  Thus  we  find  prophets  that  did  not  leave  off 
speaking  to  the  people  until  they  were  slain  ;  it  is  this  divine  influence  that 
moves  them,  that  does  not  allow  them  to  rest  in  any  way,  though  they  might 


ON    PROPHECY  229 

bring  upon  themselves  great  evils  by  tlicir  action.  K.g.,  when  Jurcniiah 
was  despised,  like  other  teachers  and  scholars  of  his  age,  he  could  not,  though 
he  desired  it,  withhold  his  prophecy,  or  cease  from  reminding  the  people  of 
the  truths  which  they  rejected.  Comp.  "  For  tlie  Word  of  tlie  Lord  was 
unto  me  a  reproach  and  a  mocking  all  day,  and  I  said,  I  will  not  mention  it, 
nor  will  I  again  speak  in  His  name  ;  but  it  was  in  mine  heart  as  a  burning 
fire,  enclosed  in  my  bones,  and  I  was  wearied  to  keep  it,  and  did  not  prevail  " 
(Jer.  XX.  8,  9).  Tliis  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  another  prophet, 
"  The  Lord  God  hath  spoken,  who  shall  not  prophesy  ?  "  (Amos  iii.  8) 
Note  it. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII 

Every  man  possesses  a  certain  amount  of  courage,  otlierwise  he  would  not 
stir  to  remove  anything  that  might  injure  him.  This  psycliical  force  seems 
to  me  analogous  to  the  physical  force  of  repulsion.  Energy  varies  like  all 
other  forces,  being  great  in  one  case  and  small  in  another.  There  are,  there- 
fore, people  who  attack  a  lion,  whilst  others  run  away  at  the  sight  of  a  mouse. 
One  attacks  a  whole  army  and  fights,  another  is  frightened  and  terrified  by 
the  threat  of  a  woman.  This  courage  requires  that  there  be  in  a  man's  con- 
stitution a  certain  disposition  for  it.  If  man,  in  accordance  with  a  certain 
view,  employs  it  more  frequently,  it  develops  and  increases,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  it  is  employed,  in  accordance  with  the  opposite  view,  more  rarely, 
it  will  diminish.  From  our  own  youth  we  remember  that  there  are  diflcrcnt 
degrees  of  energy  among  boys. 

The  same  is  the  case  with  the  intuitive  faculty  ;  all  possess  it,  but  in  differ- 
ent degrees.  Man's  intuitive  power  is  especially  strong  in  things  which  he 
has  well  comprehended,  and  in  which  his  mind  is  much  engaged.  Thus  you 
may  yourself  guess  correctly  that  a  certain  person  said  or  did  a  certain  thing 
in  a  certain  matter.  Some  persons  are  so  strong  and  sound  in  their  imagi- 
nation and  intuitive  faculty  that,  when  they  assume  a  thing  to  be  in  existence, 
the  reality  either  entirely  or  partly  confirms  their  assumption.  Although  the 
causes  of  this  assumption  are  numerous,  and  include  many  preceding.succccd- 
ing,  and  present  circumstances,  by  means  of  the  intuitive  faculty  the  intellect 
can  pass  over  all  these  causes,  and  draw  inferences  from  them  very  quickly, 
almost  instantaneously.  This  same  faculty  enables  some  persons  to  foretell 
important  coming  events.  The  prophets  must  have  had  these  two  forces, 
courage  and  intuition,  highly  developed,  and  these  were  still  more  strength- 
ened when  they  were  under  the  influence  of  the  Active  Intellect.  Their 
courage  was  so  great  that,  e.g.,  Moses,  with  only  a  staff  in  his  hand,  dared  to 
address  a  great  king  in  his  desire  to  deliver  a  nation  from  his  service.  He  was 
not  frightened  or  terrified,  because  he  had  been  told,  "  I  will  be  with  thee  " 
(Exod.  iii.  12).  The  prophets  have  not  all  the  same  degree  of  courage,^  but 
none  of  them  have  been  entirely  without  it.  Thus  Jeremiah  is  told  :  *'  Be 
not  afraid  of  them,"  etc.  (Jer.  i.  8),  and  Ezckicl  is  exhorted,  "  Do  not  fear 
them  or  their  word  "  (Ezek.  ii.  6).  In  the  same  manner,  you  find  that  all 
prophets  possessed  great  courage.  Again,  through  the  excellence  of  their 
intuitive  faculty,  they  could  quickly  foretell  the  future,  but  this  excellence, 
as  is  well  known,  likewise  admits  of  different  degrees. 


230  GUIDE    FOR    THE   PERPLEXED 

The  true  prophets  undoubtedly  conceive  ideas  that  result  from  premisses 
which  human  reason  could  not  comprehend  by  itself ;  thus  they  tell  things 
which  men  could  not  tell  by  reason  and  ordinary  imagination  alone ;  for 
[the  action  of  the  prophets'  mental  capacities  is  influenced  by]  the  same  agent 
that  causes  the  perfection  of  the  imaginative  faculty,  and  that  enables  the 
prophet  thereby  to  foretell  a  future  event  with  such  clearness  as  if  it  was  a 
thing  already  perceived  with  the  senses,  and  only  through  them  conveyed 
to  his  imagination.  This  agent  perfects  the  prophet's  mind,  and  influences 
it  in  such  a  manner  that  he  conceives  ideas  which  are  confirmed  by  reality, 
and  are  so  clear  to  him  as  if  he  deduced  them  by  means  of  syllogisms. 

This  should  be  the  belief  of  all  who  choose  to  accept  the  truth.  For  [all 
things  are  in  a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  and]  what  is  noticed  in  one  thing 
may  be  used  as  evidence  for  the  existence  of  certain  properties  in  another, 
and  the  knowledge  of  one  thing  leads  us  to  the  knowledge  of  other  things 
But  [what  we  said  of  the  extraordinary  powers  of  our  imaginative  faculty] 
applies  with  special  force  to  our  intellect,  which  is  directly  influenced  by  the 
Active  Intellect,  and  caused  by  it  to  pass  from  potentiality  to  actuality. 
It  is  through  the  intellect  that  the  influence  reaches  the  imaginative  faculty. 
How  then  could  the  latter  be  so  perfect  as  to  be  able  to  represent  things  not 
previously  perceived  by  the  senses,  if  the  same  degree  of  perfection  were 
withheld  from  the  intellect,  and  the  latter  could  not  comprehend  things 
otherwise  than  in  the  usual  manner,  namely,  by  means  of  premiss,  conclu- 
sion, and  inference  ?  This  is  the  true  characteristic  of  prophecy,  and  of  the 
disciplines  to  which  the  preparation  for  prophecy  must  exclusively  be  de- 
voted. I  spoke  here  of  true  prophets  in  order  to  exclude  the  third  class, 
namely,  those  persons  whose  logical  faculties  are  not  fuUy  developed,  and 
who  do  not  possess  any  vv^isdom,  but  are  only  endowed  with  imaginative 
and  inventive  powers.  It  may  be  that  things  perceived  by  these  persons 
are  nothing  but  ideas  which  they  had  before,  and  of  which  impressions  were 
left  in  their  imaginations  together  with  those  of  other  things ;  but  whilst 
the  impressions  of  other  images  are  effaced  and  have  disappeared,  certain 
images  alone  remain,  are  seen  and  considered  as  new  and  objective,  coming 
from  wdthout.  The  process  is  analogous  to  the  following  case :  A  person 
has  with  him  in  the  house  a  thousand  living  individuals ;  all  except  one  of 
them  leave  the  house  :  when  the  person  finds  himself  alone  with  that  in- 
dividual, he  imagines  that  the  latter  has  entered  the  house  now,  contrary  to 
the  fact  that  he  has  only  not  left  the  house.  This  is  one  of  the  many  pheno- 
mena open  to  gross  misinterpretations  and  dangerous  errors,  and  many  of 
those  who  believed  that  they  were  wise  perished  thereby. 

There  were,  therefore,  men  who  supported  their  opinion  by  a  dream  which 
they  had,  thinking  that  the  vision  during  sleep  was  independent  of  what  they 
had  previously  believed  or  heard  when  awake.  Persons  whose  mental  capa- 
cities are  not  fully  developed,  and  who  have  not  attained  intellectual  per- 
fection, must  not  take  any  notice  of  these  [dreams].  Those  who  reach  that 
perfection  may,  through  the  influence  of  the  divine  intellect,  obtain  know- 
ledge independent  of  that  possessed  by  them  when  awake.  They  are  true 
prophets,  as  is  distinctly  stated  in  Scripture,  ve-nabi  lebab  hokmah  (Ps.  xc.  12), 
"  And  the  true  prophet  possesseth  a  heart  of  wisdom."  This  must  likewise 
be  noticed. 


ON  PROPHECY  231 

CHAPTER  XXXIX 

We  have  given  the  definition  of  prophecy,  stated  its  true  characteristics,  and 
shown  that  the  prophecy  of  Moses  our  Teacher  was  dislinj,'uishcd  from  that 
of  otlier  prophets  ;  we  will  now  explain  that  this  distinction  alone  qualified 
him  for  tjie  office  of  proclaiming  the  Law,  a  mission  without  a  parallel  in  the 
history  from  Adam  to  Moses,  or  among  the  prophets  who  came  after  him  ; 
it  is  a  principle  in  our  faith  that  there  will  never  be  revealed  another  Law. 
Consequently  we  hold  that  there  has  never  been,  nor  will  there  ever  be,  any 
other  divine  Law  but  that  of  Moses  our  Teacher.  According  to  what 
is  written  in  Scripture  and  handed  down  by  tradition,  the  fact  may  be  ex- 
plained in  the  following  way  :  There  were  prophets  before  Moses,  as  the 
patriarchs  Shcm,  Eber,  Noah,  Methushelah,  and  Enoch,  but  of  these  none 
said  to  any  portion  of  mankind  that  God  sent  him  to  them  and  commanded 
him  to  convey  to  them  a  certain  message  or  to  prohibit  or  to  command  a 
certain  thing.  Such  a  thing  is  not  related  in  Scripture,  or  in  authentic 
tradition.  Divine  prophecy  reached  them  as  we  have  explained.  Men 
like  Abraham,  who  received  a  large  measure  of  prophetic  inspiration,  called 
their  fellow-men  together  and  led  them  by  training  and  instruction  to  the 
truth  which  they  had  perceived.  Thus  Abraham  taught,  and  showed  by 
philosophical  arguments  that  there  is  one  God,  that  He  has  created  every- 
thing that  exists  beside  Him,  and  that  neither  the  constellations  nor  any- 
thing in  the  air  ought  to  be  worshipped  ;  he  trained  his  fellow-men  in  this 
belief,  and  won  their  attention  by  pleasant  words  as  well  as  by  acts  of  kind- 
ness. Abraham  did  not  tell  the  people  that  God  had  sent  him  to  them  with 
the  command  concerning  certain  things  which  should  or  should  not  be  done. 
Even  when  it  was  commanded  that  he,  his  sons,  and  his  servants  should  be 
circumcised,  he  fulfilled  that  commandment,  but  he  did  not  address  his 
fellow-men  prophetically  on  this  subject.  That  Abraham  induced  his 
fellow-men  to  do  what  is  right,  telling  them  only  his  own  will  [and  not  that 
of  God],  may  be  learnt  from  the  following  passage  of  Scripture  :  "  For  I 
know  him,  because  he  commands  his  sons  and  his  house  after  him,  to  practise 
righteousness  and  judgment "  (Gen.  xix.  ig).  Also  Isaac,  Jacob,  Levi,  Ko- 
hath,  and  Amram  influenced  their  fellow-men  in  the  same  way.  Our  Sages, 
when  speaking  of  prophets  before  Moses,  used  expressions  like  the  following  : 
The  bei-din  (court  of  justice)  of  Eber,  the  bet-din  of  Methushelah,  and 
in  the  college  of  Methushelah  ;  although  all  these  were  prophets,  yet  they 
taught  their  fellow-men  in  the  manner  of  preachers,  teachers,  and  peda- 
gogues, but  did  not  use  such  phrases  as  the  following  :  "  And  God  said  to 
me.  Speak  to  certain  people  so  and  so."  This  was  the  state  of  prophecy 
before  Moses.  But  as  regards  Moses,  you  know  what  [God]  said  to  him, 
what  he  said  [to  the  people],  and  the  words  addressed  to  him  by  the  whole 
nation  :  "  This  day  we  have  seen  that  God  doth  talk  with  man.  and  that  he 
liveth  "  (Deut.  v.  21).  The  history  of  all  our  prophets  that  lived  after  Moses 
is  well  known  to  you  ;  they  performed,  as  it  were,  the  function  of  warning 
the  people  and  exhorting  them  to  keep  the  Law  of  Moses,  threatening  evil  to 
those  who  would  neglect  it,  and  announcing  blessings  to  those  who  would 
submit  to  its  guidance.  This  we  believe  will  always  be  the  case.  Comp. 
"  It  is  not  in  the  heavens  that  one  might  say,"  etc.  (ibid.  xxx.  12)  ;    "  For 


232  GUIDE   FOR    THE   PERPLEXED 

us  and  for  our  children  for  ever  "  {ibid.  xxix.  28).  It  is  but  natural  that  it 
should  be  so.  For  if  one  individual  of  a  class  has  reached  the  highest  per- 
fection possible  in  that  class,  every  other  individual  must  necessarily  be  less 
perfect,  and  deviate  from  the  perfect  measure  either  by  surplus  or  deficiency. 
Take,  e.g.,  the  normal  constitution  of  a  being,  it  is  the  most  proper 
composition  possible  in  that  class ;  any  constitution  that  deviates  from  that 
norm  contains  something  too  much  or  too  little.  The  same  is  the  case  vsnith 
the  Law.  It  is  clear  that  the  Law  is  normal  in  this  sense ;  for  it  contains 
"  Just  statutes  and  judgments  "  (Deut.  iv.  8)  ;  but  "  just  "  is  here  identical 
with  "  equibalanced."  The  statutes  of  the  Law  do  not  impose  burdens  or 
excesses  as  are  implied  in  the  service  of  a  hermit  or  pilgrim,  and  the  like ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  not  so  deficient  as  to  lead  to  gluttony  or 
lewdness,  or  to  prevent,  as  the  religious  laws  of  the  heathen  nations  do,  the 
development  of  man's  moral  and  intellectual  faculties.  We  intend  to  dis- 
cuss in  this  treatise  the  reasons  of  the  commandments,  and  we  shall  then 
show,  as  far  as  necessary,  the  justice  and  wisdom  of  the  Law,  on  account  of 
which  it  is  said  :  "  The  Law  of  God  is  perfect,  refreshing  the  heart "  (Ps. 
xix.  8).  There  are  persons  who  believe  that  the  Law  commands  much  ex- 
ertion and  great  pain,  but  due  consideration  will  show  them  their  error. 
Later  on  I  will  show  how  easy  it  is  for  the  perfect  to  obey  the  Law.  Comp. 
"  What  does  the  Lord  thy  God  ask  of  thee  ?  "  etc.  (Deut.  x.  12)  ;  "  Have 
I  been  a  wilderness  to  Israel  ?  "  (Jer.  ii.  31).  But  this  applies  only  to  the 
noble  ones ;  whilst  wicked,  violent,  and  pugnacious  persons  find  it  most 
injurious  and  hard  that  there  should  be  any  divine  authority  tending  to 
subdue  their  passion.  To  low-minded,  wanton,  and  passionate  persons  it 
appears  most  cruel  that  there  should  be  an  obstacle  in  their  way  to  satisfy 
their  carnal  appetite,  or  that  a  punishment  should  be  inflicted  for  their 
doings.  Similarly  every  godless  person  imagines  that  it  is  too  hard  to  abstain 
from  the  evil  he  has  chosen  in  accordance  with  his  inclination.  We  must 
not  consider  the  Law  easy  or  hard  according  as  it  appears  to  any  wicked,  low- 
minded,  and  immoral  person,  but  as  it  appears  to  the  judgment  of  the  most 
perfect,  who,  according  to  the  Law,  are  fit  to  be  the  example  for  all  man- 
kind. This  Law  alone  is  called  divine  ;  other  laws,  such  as  the  political 
legislations  among  the  Greeks,  or  the  follies  of  the  Sabeans,  are  the  works  of 
human  leaders,  but  not  of  prophets,  as  I  have  explained  several  times. 

CHAPTER  XL 

It  has  already  been  fully  explained  that  man  is  naturally  a  social  being,  that 
by  virtue  of  his  nature  he  seeks  to  form  communities ;  man  is  therefore 
different  from  other  living  beings  that  are  not  compelled  to  combine  into 
communities.  He  is,  as  you  know,  the  highest  form  in  the  creation,  and  he 
therefore  includes  the  largest  number  of  constituent  elements ;  this  is  the 
reason  why  the  human  race  contains  such  a  great  variety  of  individuals,  that 
we  cannot  discover  two  persons  exactly  alike  in  any  moral  quality,  or  in  ex- 
ternal appearance.  The  cause  of  this  is  the  variety  in  man's  temperament, 
and  in  accidents  dependent  on  his  form  ;  for  with  every  physical  form  there 
are  connected  certain  special  accidents  difTcrent  from  those  which  are  con- 
nected with  the  substance.     Such  a  variety  among  the  individuals  of  a  class 


ON    PROPHECY  .     233 

does  not  exist  in  any  otiicr  clnss  of  livinj^  beings;  for  the  variety  in  any  otlirr 
species  is  limited  ;  only  man  forms  an  exception  ;  two  persons  may  be  wj 
different  from  each  other  in  every  respect  that  they  appear  to  belong  to  two 
different  classes.  Whilst  one  person  is  so  cruel  that  he  kills  his  youngest 
child  in  his  anger,  another  is  too  delicate  and  faint-hearted  to  kill  even  a  fly 
or  worm.  The  same  is  the  case  with  most  of  the  accidents.  This  great 
variety  and  the  necessity  of  social  life  are  essential  elements  in  man's  nature. 
But  the  well-being  of  society  demands  that  there  should  be  a  leader  able  to 
regulate  the  actions  of  man  ;  he  must  complete  every  shortcoming,  remove 
every  excess,  and  prescribe  for  the  conduct  of  all,  so  that  the  natural  variety 
should  be  counterbalanced  by  the  uniformity  of  legislation,  and  the  order  of 
society  be  well  established.  I  therefore  maintain  that  the  Law,  though  not 
a  product  of  Nature,  is  nevertheless  not  entirely  foreign  to  Nature.  It  being 
the  will  of  God  that  our  race  should  exist  and  be  permanently  established. 
He  in  His  wisdom  gave  it  such  properties  that  men  can  acquire  the  capacity 
of  ruling  others.  Some  persons  are  therefore  inspired  with  theories  of  legis- 
lation, such  as  prophets  and  lawgivers ;  others  possess  the  power  of  enforcing 
the  dictates  of  the  former,  and  of  compelling  people  to  obey  them,  and  to 
act  accordingly.  Such  arc  kings,  who  accept  the  code  of  lawgivers,  and 
[rulers]  who  pretend  to  be  prophets,  and  accept,  either  entirely  or  partly, 
the  teaching  of  the  prophets.  They  accept  one  part  while  rejecting  another 
part,  either  because  this  course  appears  to  them  more  convenient,  or  out  of 
ambition,  because  it  might  lead  people  to  believe  that  the  rulers  themselves 
had  been  prophetically  inspired  with  these  laws,  and  did  not  copy  them  from 
others.  For  when  we  like  a  certain  perfection,  find  pleasure  in  it,  and  wish 
to  possess  it,  we  sometimes  desire  to  make  others  believe  that  we  possess  that 
virtue,  although  we  are  fully  aware  that  we  do  not  possess  it.  Thus  people, 
e.g.,  adorn  themselves  with  the  poems  of  others,  and  publish  them  as  their 
own  productions.  It  also  occurs  in  the  works  of  wise  men  on  the  various 
branches  of  Science,  that  an  ambitious,  lazy  person  sees  an  opinion  expressed 
by  another  person,  appropriates  it,  and  boasts  that  he  himself  originated  it. 
The  same  [ambition]  occurs  also  with  regard  to  the  faculty  of  prophecy. 
There  were  men  who,  like  Zedekiah,  the  son  of  Chenaanah  (l  Kings  xxii.  II, 
24)  boasted  that  they  received  a  prophecy,  and  declared  things  which  have 
never  been  prophesied.  Others,  like  Hananiah,  son  of  Azzur  (Jer.  xxviii.  1-5), 
claim  the  capacity  of  prophecy,  and  proclaim  things  which,  no  doubt,  have 
been  said  by  God,  that  is  to  say,  that  have  been  the  subject  of  a  divine  in- 
spiration, but  not  to  them.  They  nevertheless  say  that  they  are  prophets, 
and  adorn  themselves  with  the  prophecies  of  others.  All  this  can  easily  be 
ascertained  and  recognized.  I  will,  however,  fully  explain  this  to  you,  so 
that  no  doubt  be  left  to  you  on  this  question,  and  that  you  may  have  a  test 
by  which  you  may  distinguish  between  the  guidance  of  human  legislation, 
of  the  divine  law,  and  of  teachings  stolen  from  prophets.  As  regards  those 
who  declare  that  the  laws  proclaimed  by  them  are  their  own  ideas,  no  further 
test  is  required  ;  the  confession  of  the  defendant  makes  the  evidence  of  the 
witness  superfluous.  I  only  wish  to  instruct  you  about  laws  which  arc  pro- 
claimed as  prophetic.  Some  of  these  are  truly  prophetic,  originating  in 
divine  inspiration,  some  are  of  non-prophetic  character,  and  some,  though 
prophetic  originally,  are  the  result  of  plagiarism.     You  wiU  find  that  the  sole 


234  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

object  of  certain  laws,  in  accordance  with  the  intention  of  their  author,  who 
well  considered  their  effect,  is  to  establish  the  good  order  of  the  state  and 
its  affairs,  to  free  it  from  all  mischief  and  wrong  ;  these  laws  do  not  deal 
with  philosophic  problems,  contain  no  teaching  for  the  perfecting  of  our 
logical  faculties,  and  are  not  concerned  about  the  existence  of  sound  or  un- 
sound  opinions.  Their  sole  object  is  to  arrange,  under  all  circumstances, 
the  relations  of  men  to  each  other,  and  to  secure  their  well-being,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  view  of  the  author  of  these  laws.  These  laws  are  political, 
and  their  author  belongs,  as  has  been  stated  above,  to  the  third  class,  viz., 
to  those  who  only  distinguish  themselves  by  the  perfection  of  their  imagi- 
native faculties.  You  will  also  find  laws  which,  in  all  their  rules,  aim,  as  the 
law  just  mentioned,  at  the  improvement  of  the  material  interests  of  the 
people  ;  but,  besides,  tend  to  improve  the  state  of  the  faith  of  man,  to  create 
first  correct  notions  of  God,  and  of  angels,  and  to  lead  then  the  people,  by 
instruction  and  education,  to  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Universe  :  this 
education  comes  from  God ;  these  laws  are  divine.  The  question  which  now 
remains  to  be  settled  is  this :  Is  the  person  who  proclaimed  these  laws  the 
same  perfect  man  that  received  them  by  prophetic  inspiration,  or  a  plagi- 
arist, who  has  stolen  these  ideas  from  a  true  prophet  ?  In  order  to  be  enabled 
to  answer  this  question,  we  must  examine  the  merits  of  the  person,  obtain 
an  accurate  account  of  his  actions,  and  consider  his  character.  The  best  test 
is  the  rejection,  abstention,  and  contempt  of  bodily  pleasures ;  for  this  is 
the  first  condition  of  men,  and  a  fortiori  of  prophets  ;  they  must  especially 
disregard  pleasures  of  the  sense  of  touch,  which,  according  to  Aristotle,  is  a 
disgrace  to  us ;  and,  above  all,  restrain  from  the  pollution  of  sensual  inter- 
course. Thus  God  exposes  thereby  false  prophets  to  public  shame,  in  order 
that  those  who  really  seek  the  truth  may  find  it,  and  not  err  or  go  astray ; 
e.g.,  Zedekiah,  son  of  Maasiah,  and  Ahab,  son  of  Kolaiah,  boasted  that  they 
had  received  a  prophecy.  They  persuaded  the  people  to  follow  them,  by 
proclaiming  utterances  of  other  prophets ;  but  all  the  time  they  continued 
to  seek  the  low  pleasures  of  sensual  intercourse,  committing  even  adultery 
with  the  wives  of  their  companions  and  followers.  God  exposed  their  false- 
hood as  He  has  exposed  that  of  other  false  prophets.  The  king  of  Babylon 
burnt  them,  as  Jeremiah  distinctly  states :  "  And  of  them  shall  be  taken  up 
a  curse  by  all  the  captivity  of  Judah,  which  are  in  Babylon,  saying.  The  Lord 
make  thee  like  Zedekiah,  and  like  Ahab,  whom  the  king  of  Babylon  roasted 
in  the  fire.  Because  they  have  committed  villany  in  Israel,  and  have  com- 
mitted adultery  with  their  neighbours'  wives,  and  have  spoken  lying  words 
in  my  name,  which  I  have  not  commanded  them  "  (Jer.  xxix.  22,  23).  Note 
what  is  meant  by  these  words, 

CHAPTER  XLI 

I  NEED  not  explain  what  a  dream  is,  but  I  will  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
term  mareh,  "  vision,"  which  occurs  in  the  passage  :  "  In  a  vision  (be-mareh) 
do  I  make  myself  known  unto  him  "  (Num.  xii.  6).  The  term  signifies  that 
which  is  also  called  mareh  ha-ncbuah,  "  prophetic  vision,"  yad  ha-shem, 
"  the  hand  of  God,"  and  mahazeh,  "  a  vision."  It  is  something  terrible 
and  fearful  which  the  prophet  feels  while  awake,  as  is  distinctly  stated  by 


ON    PROPHECY  235 

Daniel  :  "And  I  saw  this  great  vision,  and  there  remained  no  sir<ii-ili  in 
me,  for  my  comeliness  was  turned  in  me  into  corruption,  and  I  retained  no 
strength "  (Dan.  x.  8).  He  afterwards  continues,  "  Thus  was  I  in  deep 
sleep  on  my  face,  and  my  face  toward  the  ground  "  {ilid.  ver.  9).  But  it  wai 
in  a  prophetic  vision  that  the  angel  spoke  to  him  and  "  set  him  upon  his 
knees."  Under  such  circumstances  the  senses  cease  to  act,  and  the  [Active 
Intellect]  influences  the  rational  faculties,  and  through  them  tlic  imaginative 
faculties,  which  become  perfect  and  active.  Sometimes  the  prophecy 
begins  with  a  prophetic  vision,  the  prophet  greatly  trembles,  and  is  mucli 
affected  in  consequence  of  the  perfect  action  of  the  imaginative  faculty  ; 
and  after  that  the  prophecy  foUows.  This  was  the  case  with  Abraham. 
The  commencement  of  the  prophecy  is,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to 
Abraham  in  a  vision  "  (Gen.  xv.  1)  ;  after  this,  "  a  deep  sleep  fell  upon 
Abraham  "  ;  and  at  last,  "  he  said  unto  Abraham,"  etc.  When  prophets 
speak  of  the  fact  tliat  they  received  a  prophecy,  they  say  that  they  received 
it  from  an  angel,  or  from  God  ;  but  even  in  the  latter  case  it  was  likewise 
received  through  an  angel.  Our  Sages,  therefore,  explain  the  words,  "  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  her  "  that  He  spake  through  an  angel.  You  must  know 
that  whenever  Scripture  relates  that  the  Lord  or  an  angel  spoke  to  a  person, 
this  took  place  in  a  dream  or  in  a  prophetic  vision. 

There  are  four  different  ways  in  which  Scripture  relates  the  fact  that  a 
divine  communication  was  made  to  the  prophet,  (i)  The  prophet  relates 
that  he  heard  the  words  of  an  angel  in  a  dream  or  vision  ;  (2)  He  reports  the 
words  of  the  angel  without  mentioning  that  they  were  perceived  in  a  dream 
or  vision,  assuming  that  it  is  well  known  that  prophecy  can  only  originate 
in  one  of  the  two  ways,  "  In  a  vision  I  will  make  myself  known  unto  him,  in 
a  dream  I  will  speak  unto  him  "  (Num.  xii.  6).  (3)  The  prophet  does  not 
mention  the  angel  at  all ;  he  says  that  God  spoke  to  him,  but  he  states  that 
he  received  the  message  in  a  dream  or  a  vision.  (4)  He  introduces  his  pro- 
phecy by  stating  that  God  spoke  to  him,  or  told  him  to  do  a  certain  thing, 
or  speak  certain  words,  but  he  does  not  explain  that  he  received  the  message 
in  a  dream  or  vision,  because  he  assumes  that  it  is  well  known,  and  has  been 
established  as  a  principle  that  no  prophecy  or  revelation  originates  otherwise 
than  in  a  dream  or  vision,  and  through  an  angel.  Instances  of  the  first  form 
are  the  following  : — "  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  me  in  a  dream, 
Jacob  "  (Gen.  xxxi.  11)  ;  "  And  an  angel  said  unto  Israel  in  a  vision  of  night  " 
{ibid.  xlvi.  2)  ;  "  And  an  angel  came  to  Balaam  by  night  "  ;  "  And  an  angel 
said  unto  Balaam  "  (Num.  xxii.  20-22).  Instances  of  the  second  form  arc 
these  :  "  And  Elohim  (an  angel),  said  unt  Jacob,  Rise,  go  up  to  Bethel  " 
(Gen.  XXXV.  l)  ;  "  And  Elohim  said  unto  him.  Thy  name  is  Jacob,"  etc. 
{ibid.  XXXV.  10)  ;  "  And  an  angel  of  the  Lord  called  unto  Abraham  out  of 
heaven  the  second  time  "  {ibid.  xxii.  15)  ;  "  And  Elohim  said  unto  Noah  " 
{ibid.  vi.  13).  The  following  is  an  instance  of  the  third  form  :  "  The  word 
of  the  Lord  came  unto  Abraham  in  a  vision  "  {ibid.  xv.  l).  Instances  of  the 
fourth  form  are  :  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Abraham  "  {tbtd.  xviii.  1 3)  ;  "  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Jacob,  Return,"  etc.  {ibid.  xxxi.  3) ;  "  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  Joshua  "  (Josh.  v.  9) ;  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Gideon  "  (Judges  vii. 
2).  Most  of  the  prophets  speak  in  a  similar  manner  :  "  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  me"  (Deut.  ii.  2);    "And  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  mc  " 


236  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

(Ezek.  XXX.  l)  ;  "And  the  word  of  the  Lord  came"  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  ll); 
"  And  behold,  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  him  "  (l  Kings  xix.  9)  ;  "  And 
the  word  of  the  Lord  came  expressly  "  (Ezek.  i.  3)  ;  "  The  beginning  of  the 
word  of  the  Lord  by  Hosea  "  (Hos.  i.  2)  ;  "  The  hand  of  the  Lord  was  upon 
me "  (Ezek.  ixxvii.  i).  There  are  a  great  many  instances  of  this  class. 
Every  passage  in  Scripture  introduced  by  any  of  these  four  forms  is  a  prophecy 
proclaimed  by  a  prophet ;  but  the  phrase,  "  And  Elohim  (an  angel)  came 
to  a  certain  person  in  the  dream  of  night,"  does  not  indicate  a  prophecy, 
and  the  person  mentioned  in  that  phrase  is  not  a  prophet ;  the  phrase  only 
informs  us  that  the  attention  of  the  person  was  called  by  God  to  a  certain 
thing,  and  at  the  same  time  that  this  happened  at  night.  For  just  as  God 
may  cause  a  person  to  move  in  order  to  save  or  kill  another  person,  so  He 
may  cause,  according  to  His  will,  certain  things  to  rise  in  man's  mind  in  a 
dream  by  night.  We  have  no  doubt  that  the  Syrian  Laban  was  a  perfectly 
wicked  man,  and  an  idolater ;  likewise  Abimelech,  though  a  good  man 
among  his  people,  is  told  by  Abraham  concerning  his  land  [Gerar]  and  his 
kingdom,  "Surely  there  is  no  fear  of  God  in  this  place"  (Gen.  xx.  II). 
And  yet  concerning  both  of  them,  viz.,  Laban  and  Abimelech,  it  is  said  [that 
an  angel  appeared  to  them  in  a  dream].  Comp.  "  And  Elohim  (an  angel)  came 
to  Abimelech  in  a  dream  by  night  "  {ibid.  vex.  3)  ;  and  also,  "  And  Elohim 
came  to  the  Syrian  Laban  in  the  dream  of  the  night  "  {ibid.  xxxi.  24).  Note 
and  consider  the  distinction  between  the  phrases,  "  And  Elohim  came,"  and 
"  Elohim  said,"  between  "  in  a  dream  by  night,"  and  "  in  a  vision  by  night." 
In  reference  to  Jacob  it  is  said,  "  And  an  angel  said  to  Israel  in  the  visions 
by  night "  (Gen.  xlvi.  2),  but  in  reference  to  Laban  and  Abimelech,  "  And 
Elohim  came,"  etc.  Onkelos  makes  the  distinction  clear  ;  he  translates,  in 
the  last  two  instances,  ata  memar  min  kodam  adonai,  "  a  word  came  from 
the  Lord,"  and  not  ve-itgeli,  "  and  the  Lord  appeared."  The  phrase,  "  And 
the  Lord  said  to  a  certain  person,"  is  employed  even  when  this  person  was 
not  really  addressed  by  the  Lord,  and  did  not  receive  any  prophecy,  but  was 
informed  of  a  certain  thing  through  a  prophet.  E.g.,  "  And  she  went 
to  inquire  of  the  Lord  "  (Gen.  xxv.  22)  ;  that  is,  according  to  the  explanation 
of  our  Sages,  she  went  to  the  college  of  Eber,  and  the  latter  gave  her  the 
answer  ;  and  this  is  expressed  by  the  words,  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  her  " 
{ibid.  ver.  23).  These  words  have  also  been  explained  thus,  God  spoke  to 
her  through  an  angel ;  and  by  "  angel  "  Eber  is  meant  here,  for  a  prophet 
is  sometimes  called  "  angel,"  as  will  be  explained  ;  or  the  angel  that  appeared 
to  Eber  in  this  vision  is  referred  to,  or  the  object  of  the  Midrash  explanation 
is  merely  to  express  that  wherever  God  is  introduced  as  directly  speaking  to 
a  person,  i.e.,  to  any  of  the  ordinary  prophets,  He  speaks  through  an  angel, 
as  has  been  set  forth  by  us  (chap,  xxxiv.). 

CHAPTER  XLII 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  appearance  or  speech  of  an  angel  mentioned 
in  Scripture  took  place  in  a  vision  or  dream  ;  it  makes  no  difference  whether 
this  is  expressly  stated  or  not,  as  we  have  explained  above.  This  is  a  point 
of  considerable  importance.  In  some  cases  the  account  begins  by  stating 
that  the  prophet  saw  an  angel ;  in  others,  the  account  apparently  introduces 


GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED  237 

a  human  being,  who  ultimately  is  shown  to  be  an  angel  ;  but  it  makes  no 
difference,  for  if  the  fact  that  an  angel  has  been  heard  is  only  mentioned  at 
the  end,  you  may  rest  satisfied  that  the  whole  account  from  the  beginning 
describes  a  prophetic  vision.  In  such  visions,  a  prophet  citiier  sees  God  who 
speaks  to  him,  as  will  be  explained  by  us,  or  he  sees  an  angel  who  speaks  to 
him,  or  he  hears  some  one  speaking  to  him  without  seeing  the  speaker,  or  he 
sees  a  man  who  speaks  to  him,  and  learns  afterwards  that  the  speaker  was  an 
angel.  In  this  latter  kind  of  prophecies,  the  prophet  relates  that  he  saw  a 
man  who  was  doing  or  saying  something,  and  that  he  learnt  afterwards  that 
it  was  an  angel. 

This  important  principle  was  adopted  by  one  of  our  Sages,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  among  them,  R.  Hiya  the  Great  {Rereshit  Rabba,  xlviii.),  in  the 
exposition  of  the  Scriptural  passage  commencing,  "  And  the  Lord  appeared 
unto  him  in  the  plain  of  Mamre  "  (Gen.  xviii.).  The  general  statement  that  the 
Lord  appeared  to  Abraham  is  followed  by  the  description  in  what  manner 
that  appearance  of  the  Lord  took  place ;  namely,  Abraham  saw  first  three  men  ; 
he  ran  and  spoke  to  them.  R.  Hiya,  the  author  of  the  explanation,  holds 
that  the  words  of  Abraham,  "  My  Lord,  if  now  I  have  found  grace  in  thy 
sight,  do  not,  I  pray  thee,  pass  from  thy  servant,"  were  spoken  by  him  in  a 
prophetic  vision  to  one  of  the  men ;  for  he  says  that  Abraham  addressed 
these  words  to  the  chief  of  these  men.  Note  this  well,  for  it  is  one  of  the 
great  mysteries  [of  the  Law].  The  same,  I  hold,  is  the  case  when  it  is  said 
in  reference  to  Jacob,  "  And  a  man  wrestled  witli  him  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  25)  ; 
this  took  place  in  a  prophetic  vision,  since  it  is  expressly  stated  in  the  end 
(ver.  31)  that  it  was  an  angel.  The  circumstances  are  here  exactly  the  same 
as  those  in  the  vision  of  Abraham,  where  the  general  statement,  "  And  the 
Lord  appeared  to  him,"  etc.,  is  followed  by  a  detailed  description.  Simi- 
larly the  account  of  the  vision  of  Jacob  begins,  "  And  the  angels  of  God  met 
him  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  2)  ;  then  follows  a  detailed  description  how  it  came  to 
pass  that  they  met  him  ;  namely,  Jacob  sent  messengers,  and  after  having 
prepared  and  done  certain  things,  "  he  was  left  alone,"  etc.,  "  and  a  man 
wrestled  with  him  "  {ibid.  ver.  24).  By  this  term  "  man  "  [one  of]  the  angels 
of  God  is  meant,  mentioned  in  the  phrase,  "  And  angels  of  God  met  him  "  ; 
the  wrestling  and  speaking  was  entirely  a  prophetic  vision.  That  which 
happened  to  Balaam  on  the  way,  and  the  speaking  of  the  ass,  took  place  in  a 
prophetic  vision,  since  further  on,  in  the  same  account,  an  angel  of  God  is 
introduced  as  speaking  to  Balaam.  I  also  think  that  what  Joshua  perceived, 
when  "  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  saw,  and  behold  a  man  stood  before  him  " 
(Josh.  V.  13)  was  a  prophetic  vision,  since  it  is  stated  afterwards  (ver.  14)  that 
it  was  "  the  prince  of  the  host  of  the  Lord."  But  in  the  passages,  "  And  an 
angel  of  the  Lord  came  up  from  Gilgal  "  (Judges  ii.  l)  ;  "  And  it  came  to 
pass  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  spake  these  words  to  all  Israel  "  {ibid.  ver.  2)  ; 
the  "  angel "  is,  according  to  the  explanation  of  our  Sages,  Phineas.  They 
say,  The  angel  is  Phineas,  for,  when  the  Divine  Glory  rested  upon  him,  he 
was  "  like  an  angel."  We  have  already  shown  (chap,  vi.)  that  the  term 
"  angel "  is  homonymous,  and  denotes  also  "  prophet,"  as  is  the  case  in  the 
following  passages  :— "  And  He  sent  an  angel,  and  He  hath  brought  us  up 
out  of  Egypt  "  (Num.  xx.  16)  ;  "  Then  spake  Haggai,  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
in  the  Lord's  message"  (Hagg.  i.  13);  "But  they  mocked  the  angch  of 


238  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

God  "  (2  Cliron.  xxxvi.  16). — Comp.  also  the  words  of  Daniel,  "  And  the 
man  Gabriel,  whom  I  had  seen  in  the  vision  at  the  beginning,  being  caused 
to  fly  swiftly,  touched  me  about  the  time  of  the  evening  oblation  "  (Dan. 
ix.  11).  .AJl  this  passed  in  a  prophetic  vision.  Do  not  imagine  that  an  angel 
is  seen  or  his  word  heard  otherwise  than  in  a  prophetic  vision  or  prophetic 
dream,  according  to  the  principle  laid  down  : — "  I  make  myself  known  unto 
him  in  a  vision,  and  speak  unto  him  in  a  dream  "  (Num.  xii.  6).  The  in- 
stances quoted  may  serve  as  an  illustration  of  those  passages  which  I  do  not 
mention.  From  the  rule  laid  down  by  us  that  prophecy  requires  prepara- 
tion, and  from  our  interpretation  of  the  homonym  "  angel,"  you  wall  infer 
that  Hagar,  the  Egyptian  woman,  was  not  a  prophetess ;  also  Manoah  and 
his  wife  were  no  prophets  ;  for  the  speech  they  heard,  or  imagined  they 
heard,  was  like  the  bat-kol  (prophetic  echo),  which  is  so  frequently  men- 
tioned by  our  Sages,  and  is  something  that  may  be  experienced  by  men  not 
prepared  for  prophecy.  The  homonymity  of  the  word  "  angel  "  misleads 
in  this  matter.  This  is  the  principal  method  by  which  most  of  the  difficult 
passages  in  the  Bible  can  be  explained.  Consider  the  words,  "  And  an 
angel  of  the  Lord  found  her  by  the  well  of  water  "  (Gen.  xvi.  7),  which  are 
similar  to  the  words  referring  to  Joseph — "  And  a  man  found  him,  and  be- 
hold, he  was  erring  in  the  field  "  {ibid,  xxxvii.  15).  All  the  Alidrashim 
assume  that  by  man  in  this  passage  an  angel  is  meant. 

CHAPTER  XLIII 

We  have  already  shown  in  our  work  that  the  prophets  sometimes  prophesy 
in  allegories ;  they  use  a  term  allegorically,  and  in  the  same  prophecy  the 
meaning  of  the  allegory  is  given.  In  our  dreams,  we  sometimes  believe  that 
we  are  awake,  and  relate  a  dream  to  another  person,  who  explains  the  mean- 
ing, and  all  this  goes  on  while  we  dream.  Our  Sages  call  this  "  a  dream 
interpreted  in  a  dream."  In  other  cases  we  learn  the  meaning  of  the  dream 
after  waking  from  sleep.  The  same  is  the  case  with  prophetic  allegories. 
Some  are  interpreted  in  the  prophetic  vision.  Thus  it  is  related  in  Zecha- 
riah,  after  the  description  of  the  allegorical  vision — "  And  the  angel  that 
talked  with  me  came  again  and  waked  me  as  a  man  that  is  awakened  from 
his  sleep.  And  he  said  unto  me,  '  What  dost  thou  see  ?  '  "  etc.  (Zech.  iv. 
1-2),  and  then  the  allegory  is  explained  (ver.  6,  sqq.). 

Another  instance  we  find  in  Daniel.  It  is  first  stated  there  :  "  Daniel 
had  a  dream  and  visions  of  his  head  upon  his  bed  "  (Dan.  vii.  i).  The  whole 
allegory  is  then  given,  and  Daniel  is  described  as  sighing  that  he  did  not  know 
its  interpretation.  He  asks  the  angel  for  an  explanation,  and  he  received  it 
in  a  prophetic  vision.  He  relates  as  follows :  "  I  came  near  unto  one  of 
those  that  stood  by,  and  asked  him  the  truth  of  all  this.  So  he  told  me,  and 
made  me  know  the  interpretation  of  the  things  "  {ibid.  ver.  16).  The  whole 
scene  is  called  i)azon  (vision),  although  it  was  stated  that  Daniel  had  a  dream, 
because  an  angel  explained  the  dream  to  him  in  the  same  manner  as  is  men- 
tioned in  reference  to  a  prophetic  dream.  I  refer  to  the  verse  :  "  A  vision 
appeared  to  me  Daniel,  after  that  which  appeared  to  me  at  the  first "  {ibid, 
viii.  i).  This  is  clear,  for  hazon  (vision)  is  derived  from  Ipaza,  "  to  see," 
and    mareh,  "  vision,"    from    raah,  "  to    see "  ;    and    haza    and    raah  are 


ON    PROPHECY  230 

synonymous.  There  is  therefore  no  difference  whether  we  use  marfh,  or 
mahazeh,  or  hazon,  there  is  no  other  mode  of  revehition  but  the  two 
mentioned  in  Scripture  :  "  In  a  vision  I  make  myself  known  to  him,  in  a 
dream  I  will  speak  unto  him  "  (Num.  xii.  6).  There  are,  liowcvcr,  different 
degrees  [of  prophetic  proficiency],  as  will  be  shown  (chap.  xlv.). 

There  are  other  prophetic  allegories  whose  meaning  is  not  given  in  a  pro- 
phetic vision.  The  prophet  learns  it  when  he  awakes  from  his  sleep.  Take, 
e.g.,  the  staves  which  Zcchariah  took  in  a  prophetic  vision. 

You  must  further  know  that  the  prophets  sec  things  shown  to  them  allc- 
gorically,  such  as  the  candlesticks,  horses,  and  mountains  of  Zcchariah 
(Zech.  iv.  2  ;  vi.  1-7),  the  scroll  of  Ezekicl  (Ezek.  ii.  9),  the  wall  made  by  a 
plumb-line  (Amos  vii.  7),  which  Amos  saw,  the  animals  of  Daniel  (Dan.  vii. 
and  viii.),  the  seething  pot  of  Jeremiah  (Jcr.  i.  13),  and  similar  allegorical 
objects  shown  to  represent  certain  ideas.  The  prophets,  however,  arc  also 
shown  things  which  do  not  illustrate  the  object  of  the  vision,  but  indicate 
it  by  their  name  through  its  etymology  or  homonymity.  Thus  the  imagi- 
native faculty  forms  the  image  of  a  thing,  the  name  of  which  has  two  mean- 
ings, one  of  which  denotes  something  different  [from  the  image].  This  is 
likewise  a  kind  of  allegory.  Comp.  Makkal  shakfd,  "  almond  staff,"  of  Jere- 
miah (i.  11-12).  It  was  intended  to  indicate  by  the  second  meaning  of 
shaked  the  prophecy,  "  For  I  will  watch  "  (shoked),  etc.,  which  has  no  relation 
whatever  to  the  staff  or  to  almonds.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  k^luh 
kayiz,  "  a  basket  of  summer  fruit,"  seen  by  Amos,  by  which  the  completion 
of  a  certain  period  was  indicated,  "  the  end  {ha-kez)  having  come  "  (Amos 
viii.  2).  Still  more  strange  is  the  following  manner  of  calling  the  prophet's 
attention  to  a  certain  object.  He  is  shown  a  different  object,  the  name  of 
which  has  neither  etymologically  nor  homonymously  any  relation  to  the 
first  object,  but  the  names  of  both  contain  the  same  letters,  though  in  a 
different  order,  Take,  e.g.,  the  allegories  of  Zcchariah  (chap.  xi.  7,  sqq.). 
He  takes  in  a  prophetic  vision  staves  to  lead  the  flock  ;  he  calls  the  one  Ao-dm 
(pleasure),  the  other  hobelim.  He  indicates  thereby  that  the  nation  was 
at  first  in  favour  with  God,  who  was  their  leader  and  guide.  They  rejoiced 
in  the  service  of  God,  and  found  happiness  in  it,  while  God  was  pleased  with 
them,  and  loved  them,  as  it  is  said,  "  Thou  hast  avouched  the  Lord  thy 
God,"  etc.,  and  "  the  Lord  hath  avouched  thee,"  etc.  (Deut.  xxvi.  17,  18). 
They  were  guided  and  directed  by  Moses  and  the  prophets  that  followed 
him.  But  later  a  change  took  place.  They  rejected  the  love  of  God,  and  God 
rejected  them,  appointing  destroyers  like  Jeroboam  and  Manasse  as  their 
rulers.  Accordingly,  the  word  hobelim  has  the  same  meaning  [vi/..,  de- 
stroying] as  the  root  habal  has  in  Mc/pabbclim  keramim,  "  destroying  vine- 
yards "  (Song  of  Sol.  ii.  15).  But  the  prophet  found  also  in  this  name  Hob- 
elim the  indication  that  the  people  despised  God,  and  that  God  despised 
them.  This  is,  however,  not  expressed  by  the  word  habal,  but  by  a  trans- 
position of  the  letters  IJet,  Bt%  and  Lamed,  the  meaning  of  despising  and 
rejecting  is  obtained.  Comp.  "  My  send  loathed  them,  and  their  soul  als^i 
abhorred  me  "  [bahalah]  (Zech.  xi.  8).  The  prophet  had  therefore  to  change 
the  order  of  the  letters  in  habal  into  that  of  Bahal.  In  this  way  wc  find 
very  strange  things  and  also  mysteries  {Sodot)  in  the  words  nehosbeU  Kalal, 
regel,  ^egel,   and  hashmal  of   the  Mercabah,  and  in   other   terms  in  other 


240  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

passages.      After  the  above  explanation  you  will  see  the  mysteries  in  the 
meaning  of  these  expressions  if  you  examine  them  thoroughly. 


CHAPTER  XLIV 

Prophecy  is  given  either  in  a  vision  or  in  a  dream,  as  we  have  said  so  many 
times,  and  we  will  not  constantly  repeat  it.     We  say  now  that  when  a  pro- 
phet is  inspired  with  a  prophecy  he  may  see  an  allegory,  as  we  have  shown 
frequently,  or  he  may  in  a  prophetic  vision  perceive  that  God  speaks  to  him, 
as  is  said  in  Isaiah  (vi.  8),  "  And  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  saying.  Whom 
shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?  "  or  he  hears  an  angel  addressing  him, 
and  sees  him  also.     This  is  very  frequent,  e.g.,  "  And  the  angel  of  God  spake 
unto  me,"  etc.  (Gen.  xxxi.  Il);    "And  the  angel  that  talked  with  me  an- 
swered and  said  unto  me,  Dost  thou  not  know  what  these  are  "  (Zech.  iv.  5  )  ; 
"And  I  heard  one  holy  speaking"  (Dan.  viii.  13).     Instances  of  this  are 
innumerable.  The  prophet  sometimes  sees  a  man  that  speaks  to  him.  Comp., 
"  And  behold  there  was  a  man,  whose  appearance  was  like  the  appearance  of 
brass,  and  the  man  said  to  me,"  etc.  (Ezek.  xl.  3,  4),  although  the  passage 
begins,  "  The  hand  of  the  Lord  was  upon  me  "  {ibid.  ver.  i).     In  some  cases 
the  prophet  sees  no  figure  at  all,  only  hears  in  the  prophetic  vision  the  words 
addressed  to  him  ;   e.g.,  "  And  I  heard  the  voice  of  a  man  between  the  banks 
of  Ulai  "  (Dan.  viii.  16) ;   "  There  was  silence,  and  I  heard  a  voice  "  (in  the 
speech  of  Eliphaz,  Job  iv.  16)  ;    "  And  I  heard  a  voice  of  one  that  spake  to 
me  "  (Ezek.  i.  28).     The  being  which  Ezekiel  perceived  in  the  prophetic 
vision  was  not  the  same  that  addressed  him  ;    for  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
strange  and  extraordinary  scene  which  Ezekiel  describes  expressly  as  having 
been  perceived  by  him,  the  object  and  form  of  the  prophecy  is  introduced 
by  the  words,  "  And  I  heard  a  voice  of  a  man  that  spake  to  me."     After  this 
remark  on  the  different  kinds  of  prophecy,  as  suggested  by  Scripture,  I  say 
that  the  prophet  may  perceive  that  which  he  hears  with  the  greatest  possible 
intensity,  just  as  a  person  may  hear  thunder  in  his  dream,  or  perceive  a  storm 
or  an  earthquake  ;   such  dreams  are  frequent.     The  prophet  may  also  hear 
the  prophecy  in  ordinary  common  speech,  without  anything  unusual.     Take, 
e.g.,  the  account  of  the  prophet  Samuel.     When  he  was  called  in  a  prophetic 
vision,  he  believed  that  the  priest  Eli  called  him ;   and  this  happened  three 
times  consecutively.     The  text  then  explains  the  cause  of  it,  saying  that 
Samuel  naturally  believed  that  Eli  had  called  him,  because  at  that  time  he 
did  not  yet  know  that  God  addressed  the  prophet  in  this  form,  nor  had  that 
secret  as  yet  been  revealed  to  him.    Comp.,  "  And  Samuel  did  not  yet  know 
the  Lord,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  not  yet  revealed  to  him,"    i.e.,  he 
did  not  yet  know,  and  it  had  not  yet  been  revealed  to  him,  that  the  word  of 
God  is  communicated  in  this  way.     The  words,  "  He  did  not  yet  know  the 
Lord,"  may  perhaps  mean  that  Samuel  had  not  yet  received  any  prophecy  ; 
for  in  reference  to  a  prophet's  receiving  divine  communication  it  is  said,  "  I 
make  myself  known  to  him  in  a  vision,  I  speak  to  him  in  a  dream  "  (Num. 
xii.  6).     The  meaning  of  the  verse  accordingly  is  this,  Samuel  had  not  yet 
received  any  prophecy,  and  therefore  did  not  know  that  this  was  the  form 
of  prophecy.     Note  it. 


ON    PROPHECY  241 

CHAPTER  XLV 

After  having  explained  prophecy  in  accordance  with  reason  and  Scripture, 
I  must  now  describe  the  different  degrees  of  prophecy  from  these  two  points 
of  view.  Not  all  the  degrees  of  prophecy  which  I  will  enumerate  qualify  a 
person  for  the  office  of  a  prophet.  The  first  and  the  second  degrees  arc  only 
steps  leading  to  prophecy,  and  a  person  possessing  either  of  these  two  degrees 
does  not  belong  to  the  class  of  prophets  whose  merits  we  have  been  discussing. 
When  such  a  person  is  occasionally  called  prophet,  the  term  is  used  in  a 
wider  sense,  and  is  applied  to  him  because  he  is  almost  a  prophet.  You  must 
not  be  misled  by  the  fact  that  according  to  the  books  of  the  Prophets,  a  certain 
prophet,  after  having  been  inspired  with  one  kind  of  prophecy,  is  reported 
to  have  received  prophecy  in  another  form.  For  it  is  possible  for  a  prophet 
to  prophesy  at  one  time  in  the  form  of  one  of  the  degrees  which  I  am  about 
to  enumerate,  and  at  another  time  in  another  form.  In  the  same  manner, 
as  the  prophet  does  not  prophesy  continuously,  but  is  inspired  at  one  time 
and  not  at  another,  so  he  may  at  one  time  prophesy  in  the  form  of  a  higher 
degree,  and  at  another  time  in  that  of  a  lower  degree ;  it  may  happen  that 
the  highest  degree  is  reached  by  a  prophet  only  once  in  his  lifetime,  and 
afterwards  remains  inaccessible  to  him,  or  that  a  prophet  remains  below  the 
highest  degree  until  he  entirely  loses  the  faculty  ;  for  ordinary  prophets  must 
cease  to  prophesy  a  shorter  or  longer  period  before  their  death.  Comp. 
"  And  the  word  of  the  Lord  ceased  from  Jeremiah  "  (Ezra  i.  i) ;  "  And 
these  are  the  last  words  of  David  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  l).  From  these  instances 
it  can  be  inferred  that  the  same  is  the  case  with  all  prophets.  After  this 
introduction  and  explanation,  I  wrill  begin  to  enumerate  the  degrees  of  pro- 
phecy to  which  I  have  referred  above. 

(i)  The  first  degree  of  prophecy  consists  in  the  divine  assistance  which  is 
given  to  a  person,  and  induces  and  encourages  him  to  do  something  good  and 
grand,  e.g.,  to  deliver  a  congregation  of  good  men  from  the  hands  of  evil- 
doers ;  to  save  one  noble  person,  or  to  bring  happiness  to  a  large  number  of 
people  ;  he  finds  in  himself  the  cause  that  moves  and  urges  him  to  this  deed. 
This  degree  of  divine  influence  is  called  "  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  "  ;  and  of 
the  person  who  is  under  that  influence  we  say  that  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
upon  him,  clothed  him,  or  rested  upon  him,  or  the  Lord  was  with  him,  and 
the  like.  All  the  judges  of  Israel  possessed  this  degree,  for  the  following 
general  statement  is  made  concerniug  them  : — "  The  Lord  raised  up  judges 
for  them  ;  and  the  Lord  was  with  the  judge,  and  he  saved  them  "  G"'-^g« 
ii.  18).  Also  all  the  noble  chiefs  of  Israel  belonged  to  this  class.  The  same 
is  distinctly  stated  concerning  some  of  the  judges  and  the  kings  :— •"  The 
spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  Jephthah  "  {ibid.  xi.  29)  ;  of  Samson  it  is  said, 
"  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him  "  {ibid.  xiv.  19)  ;  "  And  the  spirit 
of  the  Lord  came  upon  Saul  when  he  heard  those  words  "  (l  Sam.  xi.  6). 
When  Amasa  was  moved  by  the  holy  spirit  to  assist  David,  "  A  spirit  clothed 
Amasa,  who  was  chief  of  the  captains,  and  he  said.  Thine  are  we,  David," 
etc.  (l  Chron.  xii.  18).  This  faculty  was  always  possessed  by  Moses  from  the 
time  he  had  attained  the  age  of  manhood  ;  it  moved  him  to  slay  the  Egyptian, 
and  to  prevent  evil  from  the  two  men  that  quarrelled  ;  it  was  so  strong  that, 
after  he  had  fled  from  Egypt  out  of  fear,  and  arrived  in  Midian,  a  trembling 


242  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

stranger,  he  could  not  restrain  himself  from  interfering  when  he  saw  wrong 
being  done  ;  he  could  not  bear  it.  Comp.  "  And  Moses  rose  and  saved 
them"  (Exod.  ii.  17).  David  likewise  was  fiUed  with  this  spirit,  when  he 
was  anointed  with  the  oil  of  anointing.  Corap.  "  And  the  spirit  of  God 
came  upon  David  from  that  day  and  upward"  (i  Sam.  xvi.  13).  He  thus 
conquered  the  lion  and  the  bear  and  the  Philistine,  and  accomplished  similar 
tasks,  by  this  very  spirit.  This  faculty  did  not  cause  any  of  the  above-named 
persons  to  speak  on  a  certain  subject,  for  it  only  aims  at  encouraging  the 
person  who  possesses  it  to  action  ;  it  does  not  encourage  him  to  do  every- 
thing, but  only  to  help  either  a  distinguished  man  or  a  wliole  congregation 
when  oppressed,  or  to  do  something  that  leads  to  that  end.  Just  as  not  all 
who  have  a  true  dream  are  prophets,  so  it  cannot  be  said  of  every  one  who  is 
assisted  in  a  certain  undertaking,  as  in  the  acquisition  of  property,  or  of  some 
other  personal  advantage,  that  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,  or  that 
the  Lord  was  with  him,  or  that  he  performed  his  actions  by  the  holy  spirit. 
We  only  apply  such  phrases  to  those  who  have  accomplished  something  very 
good  and  grand,  or  something  that  leads  to  that  end  ;  e.g.,  the  success  of 
Joseph  in  the  house  of  the  Egyptian,  which  was  the  first  cause  leading  evidently 
to  great  events  that  occurred  subsequently. 

(2)  The  second  degree  is  this :  A  person  feels  as  if  something  came  upon 
him,  and  as  if  he  had  received  a  new  power  that  encourages  him  to  speak. 
He  treats  of  science,  or  composes  hymns,  exhorts  his  feUow-men,  discusses 
political  and  theological  problems  ;  all  this  he  does  while  awake,  and  in  the 
fuU  possession  of  his  senses.  Such  a  person  is  said  to  speak  by  the  holy  spirit. 
David  composed  the  Psalms,  and  Solomon  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  the  Song  of  Solomon  by  this  spirit ;  also  Daniel,  Job,  Chronicles,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Hagiographa  were  written  in  this  holy  spirit ;  therefore  they 
are  called  ketuhirn  (Writings,  or  Written),  i.e.,  written  by  men  inspired 
by  the  holy  spirit.  Our  Sages  mention  this  expressly  concerning  the  Book 
of  Esther.  In  reference  to  such  holy  spirit,  David  says :  "  The  spirit  of  the 
Lord  spoke  in  me.  and  his  wofd  is  on  my  tongue  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  2)  ;  i.e.,  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord  caused  him  to  utter  these  words.  This  class  includes  the 
seventy  elders  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  the  spirit  rested 
upon  them,  that  they  prophesied,  and  did  not  cease  "  (Num.  xi.  25)  ;  also 
Eldad  and  Medad  (ibid.  ver.  26)  ;  furthermore,  every  high  priest  that 
inquired  [of  God]  by  the  Urim  and  Tummim  ;  on  whom,  as  our  Sages  say, 
the  divine  glory  rested,  and  who  spoke  by  the  holy  spirit ;  Yahaziel,  son  of 
Zechariah,  belongs  likewise  to  this  class.  Comp.  "  The  spirit  of  the  Lord 
came  upon  him  in  the  midst  of  the  assembly,  and  he  said.  Listen,  all  Judah 
and  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  thus  saith  the  Lord  unto  you,"  etc.  (2  Chron. 
XX.  14,  15)  ;  also  Zechariah,  son  of  Jehoiada  the  priest.  Comp.  "  And  he 
stood  above  the  people  and  said  unto  them.  Thus  saith  God  "  {ibid.  xxiv. 
20)  ;  furthermore,  Azariah,  son  of  Oded  ;  comp.  "  And  Azariah,  son  of 
Odcd,  when  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,  went  forth  before  Asa," 
etc.  {ibid.  XV.  I,  2)  ;  and  all  who  acted  under  similar  circumstances.  You 
must  know  that  Balaam  likewise  belonged  to  this  class,  when  he  was  good  ; 
this  is  indicated  by  the  words,  "  And  God  put  a  word  in  the  mouth  of 
Balaam  "  (Num.  xxiii.  5),  i.e.,  Balaam  spoke  by  divine  inspiration  ;  he  there- 
fore says  of  himself,  "  Who  heareth   the  words  of  God,"  etc.  {ibid.  xxiv.  4). 


ON    PROPHECY  243 

We  must  especially  point  out  that  David,  Solomon,  and  Daniel  belonged  10 
this  class,  and  not  to  the  class  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Natlian  the  prophet,  Ahijah 
the  Shilonite,  and  those  like  them.  For  David,  Solomon,  and  I^anicl  spoke 
and  wrote  inspired  by  the  holy  spirit,  and  when  David  says,  "  The  God  of 
Israel  spoke  and  said  unto  me,  the  rock  of  Israel  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  3),  he  meant 
to  say  that  God  promised  him  happiness  through  a  prophet,  through  Nathan 
or  another  prophet.  The  phrase  must  here  be  interpreted  in  the  same 
manner  as  in  the  following  passages,  "  And  God  said  to  her  "  (Gen.  xxv.  26)  ; 
"  And  God  said  unto  Solomon,  Because  this  hath  been  in  thy  heart,  and  thou 
hast  not  kept  my  covenant,"  etc.  (l  Kings  xi.  li).  The  latter  passage  un- 
doubtedly contains  a  prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  or  another  prophet, 
who  foretold  Solomon  that  evil  would  befall  iiim.  The  passage,  "  God 
appeared  to  Solomon  at  Gibeon  in  a  dream  by  night,  and  God  said  "  {ibid. 
iii.-5),  does  not  contain  a  real  prophecy,  such  as  is  introduced  by  the  words  : 
"  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Abram  in  a  vision,  saying  "  (Gen.  xv.  i)  ; 
or,  "  And  God  said  to  Israel  in  the  visions  of  the  night  "  {ibid.  xlvi.  2),  or 
such  as  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  contain  ;  in  all  these  cases  the 
prophets,  though  receiving  the  prophecy  in  a  prophetic  dream,  are  told  that 
it  is  a  prophecy,  and  that  they  have  received  prophetic  inspiration.  But  in 
the  case  of  Solomon,  the  account  concludes,  "  And  Solomon  awoke,  and 
behold  it  was  a  dream  "  (l  Kings  iii.  15)  ;  and  in  the  account  of  the  second 
divine  appearance,  it  is  said,  "  And  God  appeared  to  Solomon  a  second  time, 
as  he  appeared  to  him  at  Gibeon  "  {ibid.  ix.  2) ;  it  was  evidently  a  dream. 
This  kind  of  prophecy  is  a  degree  below  that  of  which  Scripture  says,  "  In  a 
dream  I  will  speak  to  him  "  (Num.  xii.  6).  When  prophets  are  inspired  in 
a  dream,  they  by  no  means  call  this  a  dream,  although  the  prophecy  reached 
them  in  a  dream,  but  declare  it  decidedly  to  be  a  prophecy.  Thus  Jacob, 
our  father,  when  awaking  from  a  prophetic  dream,  did  not  say  it  was  a  dream, 
but  declared,  "  Surely  there  is  the  Lord  in  this  place,"  etc.  (Gen.  xxviii.  16)  ; 
"  God  the  Almighty  appeared  to  me  in  Luz,  in  the  land  of  Canaan  "  {ibid. 
xlviii.  3),  expressing  thereby  that  it  was  a  prophecy.  But  in  reference  to 
Solomon  we  read  : — "  And  Solomon  awoke,  and  behold  it  was  a  dream  " 
(l  Kings  iii.  15).  Similarly  Daniel  declares  that  he  had  a  dream  ;  although 
he  sees  an  angel  and  hears  his  word,  he  speaks  of  the  event  as  of  a  dream  ; 
even  when  he  had  received  the  information  [concerning  the  dreams  of 
Nebukadnezzar],  he  speaks  of  it  in  the  following  manner— "  Then  was  the 
secret  revealed  to  Daniel  in  a  night  vision  "  (Dan.  ii.  19).  On  other  occasions 
it  is  said,  "  He  wrote  down  the  dream  "  ;  "I  saw  in  the  visions  by  night," 
etc. ;  "  And  the  visions  of  my  head  confused  me  "  (Dan.  vii.  I,  2,  15)  ;  "I 
was  surprised  at  the  vision,  and  none  noticed  it "  {ibid.  viii.  27).  There  is 
no  doubt  that  this  is  one  degree  below  that  form  of  prophecy  to  which  the 
words,  "  In  a  dream  I  vnU  speak  to  him,"  are  applied.  For  this  reason  the 
nation  desired  to  place  the  book  of  Daniel  among  the  Hagiographa,  and  not 
among  the  Prophets.  I  have,  therefore,  pointed  out  to  you,  that  the  pro- 
phecy revealed  to  Daniel  and  Solomon,  although  they  saw  an  angel  in  the 
dream,  was  not  considered  by  them  as  a  perfect  prophecy,  but  as  a  dream 


244  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Ecclesiastes,  Daniel,  Psalms,  Ruth,  and  Estlier ;  they  are  all  written  by 
divine  inspiration.  The  authors  of  all  these  books  are  called  prophets  in  the 
more  general  sense  of  the  term. 

(3)  The  third  class  is  the  lowest  [class  of  actual  prophets,  i.e.]  of  those  who 
introduce  their  speech  by  the  phrase,  "  And  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto 
me,"  or  a  similar  phrase.  The  prophet  sees  an  allegory  in  a  dream — under 
those  conditions  which  we  have  mentioned  when  speaking  of  real  prophecy — 
and  in  the  prophetic  dream  itself  the  allegory  is  interpreted.  Such  are  most 
of  the  allegories  of  Zechariah. 

(4)  The  prophet  hears  in  a  prophetic  dream  something  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly, but  does  not  see  the  speaker.  This  was  the  case  with  Samuel  in  the 
beginning  of  his  prophetic  mission,  as  has  been  explained  (chap.  xliv.). 

(5)  A  person  addresses  the  prophet  in  a  dream,  as  was  the  case  in  some  of 
the  prophecies  of  Ezekicl.  Comp.  "  And  the  man  spake  unto  me,  Son  of 
man,"  etc.  (Ezek.  xl.  4). 

(6)  An  angel  speaks  to  him  in  a  dream ;  this  applies  to  most  of  the  pro- 
phets ;  e.g.,  "  And  an  angel  of  God  said  to  me  in  a  dream  of  night  "  (Gen. 
xxxi.  11). 

(7)  In  a  prophetic  dream  it  appears  to  the  prophet  as  if  God  spoke  to  him. 
Thus  Isaiah  says,  "  And  I  saw  the  Lord,  and  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
saying,  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?  "  (Isa.  vi.  I,  8).  Micaiah, 
son  of  Imla,  said  likewise,  "  I  saw  the  I,ord  "  (i  Kings  xxii.  19). 

(8)  Something  presents  itself  to  the  prophet  in  a  prophetic  vision  ;  he  sees 
allegorical  figures,  such  as  were  seen  by  Abraham  in  the  vision  "  between  the 
pieces  "  (Gen.  xv.  9,  10)  ;  for  it  was  in  a  vision  by  daytime,  as  is  distinctly 
stated. 

(9)  The  prophet  hears  words  in  a  prophetic  vision  ;  as,  e.g.,  is  said  in  refer- 
ence to  Abraham,  "  And  behold,  the  word  came  to  him,  saying,  This  shall 
not  be  thine  heir  "  (ibid.  xv.  4). 

(10)  The  prophet  sees  a  man  that  speaks  to  him  in  a  prophetic  vision  ;  e.g., 
Abraham  in  the  plain  of  Mamre  (ibid,  xviii.  l),  and  Joshua  in  Jericho  (Josh. 

V.  13)- 

(i  i)  He  sees  an  angel  that  speaks  to  him  in  the  vision,  as  was  the  case  when 
Abraham  was  addressed  by  an  angel  at  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  15). 
This  I  hold  to  be — if  we  except  Moses — the  highest  degree  a  prophet  can 
attain  according  to  Scripture,  provided  he  has,  as  reason  demands,  his 
rational  faculties  fully  developed.  But  it  appears  to  me  improbable  that  a 
prophet  should  be  able  to  perceive  in  a  prophetic  vision  God  speaking  to 
him  ;  the  action  of  the  imaginative  faculty  does  not  go  so  far,  and  therefore 
we  do  not  notice  this  in  the  case  of  the  ordinary  prophets ;  Scripture  says 
expressly,  "  In  a  vision  I  will  make  myself  known,  in  a  dream  I  will  speak  to 
him  "  ;  the  speaking  is  here  connected  with  dream,  the  influence  and  the 
action  of  the  intellect  is  connected  with  vision  ;  comp.  "  In  a  vision  I  vvdll 
make  myself  known  to  him  "  (etvadda^,  hitpael  of  yada\  "  to  know  "),  but  it 
is  not  said  here  that  in  a  vision  anything  is  heard  from  God.  When  I,  there- 
fore, met  with  statements  in  Scripture  that  a  prophet  heard  words  spoken 
to  him,  and  that  this  took  place  in  a  vision,  it  occurred  to  me  that  the  case  in 
which  God  appears  to  address  the  prophet  seems  to  be  the  only  diflerence 
between  a  vision  and  a  dream,  according  to  the  literal  sense  of  the  Scriptural 


ON   PROPHECY.  245 

text.  But  it  is  possible  to  explain  the  passages  in  which  a  prophet  is  reported 
to  have  heard  in  the  course  of  a  vision  words  spoken  lu  him,  in  the  following 
manner  :  at  first  he  has  had  a  vision,  but  subsequently  he  fell  into  a  deep  sleep, 
and  the  vision  was  changed  into  a  dream.  Thus  we  explained  the  words, 
"  And  a  deep  sleep  fell  upon  Abram  "  (Gen.  xv.  12)  ;  and  our  Sages  remark 
thereon,  "  This  was  a  deep  sleep  of  prophecy."  According  to  this  explana- 
tion, it  is  only  in  a  dream  that  the  prophet  can  hear  words  addressed  to  him  ; 
it  makes  no  difference  in  what  manner  words  are  spoken.  Scripture  supports 
this  theory,  "  In  a  dream  I  will  speak  to  him."  But  in  a  prophetic  vision 
only  allegories  are  perceived,  or  rational  truths  are  obtained,  that  lead  to  some 
knowledge  in  science,  such  as  can  be  arrived  at  by  reasoning.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  "  In  a  vision  I  will  make  myself  known  unto  him." 
According  to  this  second  explanation,  the  degrees  of  prophecy  are  reduced 
to  eight,  the  highest  of  them  being  the  prophetic  vision,  including  all  kinds 
of  vision,  even  the  case  in  which  a  man  appears  to  address  the  prophet,  as  has 
been  mentioned.  You  will  perhaps  ask  this  question  :  among  the  different 
degrees  of  prophecy  there  is  one  in  which  prophets,  e.g.,  Isaiah,  Micaiah, 
appear  to  hear  God  addressing  them  ;  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  the 
principle  that  all  prophets  are  prophetically  addressed  through  an  angel, 
except  Moses  our  Teacher,  in  reference  to  whom  Scripture  says,  "  Mouth  to 
mouth  I  speak  to  him  "  (Num.  xii.  8)  ?  I  answer,  this  is  really  the  case,  the 
medium  here  being  the  imaginative  faculty  that  hears  in  a  prophetic  dream 
God  speaking ;  but  Moses  heard  the  voice  addressing  him  "  from  above  the 
covering  of  the  ark  from  between  the  two  cherubim  "  (Exod.  ixv.  22)  with- 
out the  medium  of  the  imaginative  faculty.  In  Mishne-torah  we  have  given 
the  characteristics  of  this  kind  of  prophecy,  and  explained  the  meaning  of  the 
phrases,  "  Mouth  to  mouth  I  speak  to  him  "  ;  "  As  man  spcaketh  to  his 
neighbour  "  (Exod.  xxxiii.  ll),  and  the  like.  Study  it  there,  and  I  need  not 
repeat  what  has  already  been  said. 

CHAPTER  XLVI 

One  individual  may  be  taken  as  an  illustration  of  the  individuals  of  the  whole 
species.  From  its  properties  we  learn  those  of  each  individual  of  the  species. 
I  mean  to  say  that  the  form  of  one  account  of  a  prophecy  illustrates  all  ac- 
counts of  the  same  class.  After  this  remark  you  will  understand  that  a 
person  may  sometimes  dream  that  he  has  gone  to  a  certain  country,  married 
there,  stayed  there  for  some  time,  and  had  a  son,  whom  he  gave  a  ccrtam 
name,  and  who  was  in  a  certain  condition  [though  nothing  of  all  this  has 
really  taken  place]  ;  so  also  in  prophetic  allegories  certain  objects  arc  seen, 
acts  performed— if  the  style  of  the  aUegory  demands  it— things  arc  done  by 
the  prophet,  the  intervals  between  one  act  and  another  determined,  and 
journeys  undertaken  from  one  place  to  another  ;  but  all  these  things  arc  only 
processes  of  a  prophetic  vision,  and  not  real  thins^s  that  could  be  perceived 
by  the  senses  of  the  body.  Some  of  the  accounts  simply  relate  these  inci- 
dents [without  premising  that  they  are  part  of  a  vision],  because  it  is  a  well- 
known  fact  that  all  these  accounts  refer  to  prophetic  visions,  and  it  was  not 
necessary  to  repeat  in  each  case  a  statement  to  this  effect. 

Thus  the  prophet  relates :    "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  me,"  and  need  not 


246  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

add  the  explanation  that  it  was  in  a  dream.  The  ordinary  reader  believes 
that  the  acts,  journeys,  questions,  and  answers  of  the  prophets  really  took 
place,  and  were  perceived  by  the  senses,  and  did  not  merely  form  part  of  a 
prophetic  vision.  I  vnll  mention  here  an  instance  concerning  which  no 
person  will  entertain  the  least  doubt.  I  will  add  a  few  more  of  the  same 
kind,  and  these  vnll  show  you  how  those  passages  must  be  understood  which 
I  do  not  cite.  The  following  passage  in  Ezekiel  (viii.  I,  3)  is  clear,  and  admits 
of  no  doubt :  "  I  sat  in  mine  house,  and  the  elders  of  Judah  sat  before  me, 
etc.,  and  a  spirit  lifted  me  up  between  the  earth  and  the  heaven,  and  brought 
me  in  the  visions  of  God  to  Jerusalem,"  etc. ;  abo  the  passage,  "  Thus  I  arose 
and  went  into  the  plain  "  (iii.  2,  3),  refers  to  a  prophetic  vision  ;  just  as  the 
words,  "  And  he  brought  him  forth  abroad,  and  said.  Look  now  toward 
heaven  and  tell  the  stars,  if  thou  be  able  to  number  them  "  (Gen.  xv.  5) 
describe  a  vision.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  words  of  Ezekiel  (xxxvii.  i), 
"  And  set  me  down  in  the  midst  of  the  valley."  In  the  description  of  the 
vision  in  which  Ezekiel  is  brought  to  Jerusalem,  we  read  as  follows :  "  And 
when  I  looked,  behold  a  Iiole  in  the  wall.  Then  said  he  unto  me.  Son  of 
man,  dig  now  in  the  wall ;  and  when  I  had  digged  in  the  wall,  behold  a  door  " 
(ibid.  viii.  7-8),  etc.  It  was  thus  in  a  vision  that  he  was  commanded  to  dig 
in  the  wall,  to  enter  and  to  see  what  people  were  doing  there,  and  it  was  in 
the  same  vision  that  he  digged,  entered  through  the  hole,  and  saw  certain 
things,  as  is  related.  Just  as  all  this  forms  part  of  a  vision,  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  following  passages  :  "  And  thou  take  unto  thee  a  tile,"  etc.,  "  and 
lie  thou  also  on  thy  left  side,"  etc. ;  "  Take  thou  also  wheat  and  barley,"  etc., 
"  and  cause  it  to  pass  over  thine  head  and  upon  thy  beard  "  (chaps,  iv.  and  v.) 
It  was  in  a  prophetic  vision  that  he  saw  that  he  did  all  these  actions  which  he 
was  commanded  to  do.  God  forbid  to  assume  that  God  would  make  his 
prophets  appear  an  object  of  ridicule  and  sport  in  the  eyes  of  the  ignorant, 
and  order  them  to  perform  foolish  acts.  We  'must  also  bear  in  mind  that 
the  command  given  to  Ezekiel  impHed  disobedience  to  the  Law,  for  he, 
being  a  priest,  would,  in  causing  the  razor  to  pass  over  every  corner  of  the 
beard  and  of  the  head,  have  been  guilty  of  transgressing  two  prohibitions 
in  each  case.  But  it  was  only  done  in  a  prophetic  vision.  Again,  when  it 
is  said,  "  As  my  servant  Isaiah  went  naked  and  barefoot "  (  Isa.  xx.  3),  the 
prophet  did  so  in  a  prophetic  vision.  Weak-minded  persons  believe  that  the 
prophet  relates  here  what  he  was  commanded  to  do,  and  what  he  actually 
did,  and  that  he  describes  how  he  was  commanded  to  dig  in  a  wall  on  the 
Temple  mount  although  he  was  in  Babylon,  and  relates  how  he  obeyed  the 
command,  for  he  says,  "  And  I  digged  in  the  wall."  But  it  is  distinctly 
stated  that  all  this  took  place  in  a  vision. 

It  is  analogous  to  the  description  of  the  vision  of  Abraham  which  begins, 
"  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Abram  in  a  vision,  saying  "  (Gen.  xv.  i)  ; 
and  contains  at  the  same  time  the  passage,  "  He  brought  him  forth  abroad, 
and  said,  Look  now  to  the  heaven  and  count  the  stars "  (ibid.  ver.  6).  It  is 
evident  that  it  was  in  a  vision  that  Abraham  saw  himself  brought  forth  from 
his  place  looking  towards  the  heavens  and  being  told  to  count  the  stars. 
This  is  related  [without  repeating  the  statement  that  it  was  in  a  vision]. 
The  same  I  say  in  reference  to  the  command  given  to  Jeremiah,  to  conceal 
the  girdle  in  the  Euphrates,  and  the  statement  that  he  concealed  it,  examined 


ON    PROPHECY  247 

It  after  a  lono;  time,  and  found  it  rotten  and  spoiled  (Jcr.  xiii.  4-7).     All  tliis 
was  allegorically  shown  in  a  vision  ;    Jeremiah  did  not  ^50  from  Palestine  to 
Babylon,  and  did  not  sec  the  Euphrates.     The  same  applies  to  the  account 
of  the  commandment  given  to  Hosea  (i.-iii.)  :    "  Take  unto  thee  a  wife  of 
whoredom,  and  children  of  whoredom,"  to  the  birth  of  the  children  and  to 
the  giving  of  names  to  them.     All  this  passed  in  a  prophetic  vision.     When 
once    stated    that  these   are   allegories,    there    is  left   no    doubt  that    the 
events  related  had  no  real  existence,  except  in  the  minds  of  those  of  whom 
the  prophet  says :  "  And  the  vision  of  every  one  was  unto  them  like  the  words 
of  a  sealed  book  "  (Isa.  xxix.  11).     I  believe  that  the  trial  of  Gideon  (Judges 
vi.  21,  27)  vnth  the  fleece  and  other  things  was  a  vision.     I  do  not  call  it  a 
prophetic  vision,  as  Gideon  had  not  reached  the  degree  of  prophets,  much 
less  that  height  which  would  enable  him  to  do  wonders.     He  only  rose  to  the 
height  of  the  Judges  of  Israel,  and  he  has  even  been  counted  by  our  Sages 
among  persons  of  little  importance,  as  has  been  pointed  out  by  us. 

The  same  can  be  said  of  the  passage  in  Zechariah  (xi.  7),  "  And  I  fed  the 
flock  of  slaughter,"  and  all  the  incidents  that  are  subsequently  described  ; 
the  graceful  asking  for  wages,  the  acceptance  of  the  wages,  the  wanting  of  the 
money,  and  the  casting  of  the  same  into  the  house  of  the  treasure  ;  all  these 
incidents  form  part  of  the  vision.  He  received  the  commandment  and 
carried  it  out  in  a  prophetic  vision  or  dream. 

The  correctness  of  this  theory  cannot  be  doubted,  and  only  those  do 
not  comprehend  it  who  do  not  know  to  distinguish  between  that  which  is 
possible,  and  that  which  is  impossible.  The  instances  quoted  may  serve  as 
an  illustration  of  other  similar  Scriptural  passages  not  quoted  by  me.  They 
are  all  of  the  same  kind,  and  in  the  same  style.  Whatever  is  said  in  the 
account  of  a  vision,  that  the  prophet  heard,  went  forth,  came  out,  said,  was 
told,  stood,  sat,  went  up,  went  down,  jgurneyed,  asked,  or  was  asked,  all  is 
part  of  the  prophetic  vision  ;  even  when  there  is  a  lengthened  account,  the 
details  of  which  are  well  connected  as  regards  the  time,  the  persons  referred 
to,  and  the  place.  After  it  has  once  been  stated  that  the  event  described 
is  to  be  understood  figuratively,  it  must  be  assumed  for  certain  that  the  whole 
is  a  prophetic  vision. 

CHAPTER  XLVn 

It  is  undoubtedly  clear  and  evident  that  most  prophecies  arc  given  in  images, 
for  this  is  the  characteristic  of  the  imaginative  faculty,  the  organ  of  prophecy 
We  find  it  also  necessary  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  figures,  hyperboles,  and 
exaggerations  that  occur  in  Scripture.     They  would  create  strange  ideas  if 
we  were  to  take  them  literally  without  noticing  the  exaggeration  which  they 
contain,  or  if  we  were  to  understand  them  in  accordance  with  the  original 
meaning  of  the  terms,  ignoring  the  fact  that  these  are  used  figuratively. 
Our  Sages  say  distinctly  Scripture  uses  hyperbolic  or  exaggerated  language^; 
and  quote  as  an  instance,  "  cities  walled  and  fortified,  rising  up  to  heaven 
(Deut.  i.  28).     As  a  hyperbole-our  Sages  quote,  "  For  the   bird  of   heaven 
carries  the  voice  "  (Eccles.  x.  20)  ;  in  the  same  sense  it  is  said      W  hose  heigh 
is  Hke  that  of  cedar  trees  "  (Amos  ii.  9).     Instances  of  this  kind  arc  frequent 
ia  the  language  of  all  prophets ;   what  they  say  is  frequently  liypcrbohc  or 


248  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

exaggerated,  and  not  precise  or  exact.  What  Scripture  says  about  Og, 
"  Behold,  his  bedstead  was  an  iron  bedstead,  nine  cubits  its  length,"  etc. 
(Deut.),  does  not  belong  to  this  class  of  figures,  for  the  bedstead  (eres,  conap. 
arsenu,  Song  of  Sol.  i.  16)  is  never  exactly  of  the  same  dimensions  as  the  per- 
son using  it ;  it  is  not  like  a  dress  that  fits  round  the  body ;  it  is  always 
greater  than  the  person  that  sleeps  therein  ;  as  a  rule,  is  it  by  a  third  longer. 
If,  therefore,  the  bed  of  Og  was  nine  cubits  in  length,  he  must,  according  to 
this  proportion,  have  been  six  cubits  high,  or  a  little  more.  The  words,  "  by 
the  cubit  of  a  man,"  mean,  by  the  measure  of  an  ordinary  man,  and  not  by 
the  measure  of  Og  ;  for  men  have  the  limbs  in  a  certain  proportion.  Scrip- 
ture thus  tells  us  that  Og  was  double  as  long  as  an  ordinary  person,  or  a  little 
less.  This  is  undoubtedly  an  exceptional  height  among  men,  but  not  quite 
impossible.  As  regards  the  Scriptural  statement  about  the  length  of  man's 
life  in  those  days,  I  say  that  only  the  persons  named  lived  so  long,  whilst  other 
people  enjoyed  the  ordinary  length  of  life.  The  men  named  were  excep- 
tions, either  in  consequence  of  different  causes,  as  e.g.,  their  food  or  mode  of 
living,  or  by  way  of  miracle,  which  admits  of  no  analogy. 

We  must  further  discuss  the  figurative  language  employed  in  Scripture. 
In  some  cases  this  is  clear  and  evident,  and  doubted  by  no  person ;  e.g., 
"  The  mountains  and  hills  shall  break  forth  in  song  before  you,  and  all  the 
trees  of  the  wood  clap  their  hands  "  (Isa.  Iv.  12)  ;  this  is  evidently  figurative 
language  ;  also  the  following  passage — "  The  fir-trees  rejoice  at  thee,"  etc. 
(ibid.  xiv.  8),  which  is  rendered  by  Jonathan,  son  of  Uzziel,  "  The  rulers 
rejoice  at  thee,  who  are  rich  in  possessions."  This  figure  is  similar  to  that 
used  in  the  phrase,  "  Butter  of  kine  and  milk  of  sheep,"  etc.  (Deut.  xxxii.  14). 

And  these  figures  are  very  frequent  in  the  books  of  the  prophets.  Some 
are  easily  recognised  by  the  ordinary  reader  as  figures,  others  with  some  diffi- 
culty. Thus  nobody  doubts  that  t^ie  blessing,  "  May  the  Lord  open  to  thee 
his  good  treasure,  the  heavens,"  must  be  taken  figuratively ;  for  God  has  no 
treasure  in  which  He  keeps  the  rain.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  following 
passage — "  He  opened  the  doors  of  heaven,  he  rained  upon  them  manna  to 
eat "  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  23,  24).  No  person  assumes  that  there  is  a  door  or  gate 
in  heaven,  but  every  one  understands  that  this  is  a  simue  and  a  figurative 
expression.  In  the  same  way  must  be  understood  the  following  passages — 
"  The  heavens  were  opened  "  (Ezek.  i.  i) ;  "  If  not,  blot  me  out  from  thy 
book  which  thou  hast  written  "  (Exod.  xxxii.  32)  ;  "  I  will  blot  him  out  from 
the  book  of  life  "  {ibid.  ver.  33).  All  these  phrases  are  figurative  ;  and  we  must 
not  assume  that  God  has  a  book  in  which  He  writes,  or  from  which  He  blots 
out,  as  those  generally  believe  that  do  not  find  figurative  speech  in  these 
passages.  They  are  all  of  the  same  kind.  You  must  explain  passages  not 
quoted  by  me  by  those  which  I  have  quoted  in  this  chapter.  Employ  your 
reason,  and  you  will  be  able  to  discern  what  is  said  allegorically,  figuratively, 
or  hyperbolically,  and  what  is  meant  literally,  exactly  according  to  the  ori- 
ginal meaning  of  the  words.  You  will  then  understand  all  prophecies,  learn 
and  retain  rational  principles  of  faith,  pleasing  in  the  eyes  of  God  who  is 
most  pleased  with  truth,  and  most  displeased  with  falsehood ;  your  mind 
and  heart  will  not  be  so  perplexed  as  to  believe  or  accept  as  law  what  is  un- 
true or  improbable,  whilst  the  Law  is  perfectly  true  when  properly  under- 
stood.    Thus  Scripture  says,  "  Thy  testimonies  are  righteousness  for  ever  " 


ON   PROPHFXY 


249 


(Ps.  cxix.  144);  and  "I  the  Lord  speak  righteousness"  (Isa.  xlv.  19).  If 
you  adopt  this  mctliod,  you  will  not  imagine  the  existence  of  things  which 
God  has  not  created,  or  accept  principles  which  might  partly  lead  to  atheism, 
or  to  a  corruption  of  your  notions  of  God  so  as  to  ascribe  to  Him  corporeality, 
attributes,  or  emotions,  as  has  been  shown  by  us,  nor  will  you  believe  that 
the  words  of  the  prophets  are  false  ;  for  the  cause  of  this  disease  is  ignorance 
of  what  we  have  explained.  These  things  belong  likewise  to  the  mysteries 
of  the  Law ;  and  although  we  have  treated  them  in  a  general  manner,  they 
can  easily  be  understood  in  all  their  details  in  accordance  with  the  ab'jvc 
remarks. 

CHAPTER  XLVIII 

It  is  clear  that  everything  produced  must  have  an  immediate  cause  which 
produced  it ;  that  cause  again  a  cause,  and  so  on.  till  tlie  I'irst  Cause,  viz., 
the  will  and  decree  of  God  is  reached.  The  prophets  therefore  omit  some- 
times the  intermediate  causes,  and  ascribe  the  production  of  an  individual 
thing  directly  to  God,  saying  that  God  has  made  it.  This  method  is  well 
known,  and  we,  as  well  as  others  of  those  who  seek  the  truth,  have  explained 
it ;  it  is  the  belief  of  our  co-religionists. 

After  having  heard  this  remark,  listen  to  what  I  will  explain  in  this  chapter  ; 
direct  your  special  attention  to  it  more  than  you  have  done  to  the  other 
chapters  of  this  part.  It  is  this  :  As  regards  the  immediate  causes  of  things 
produced,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  these  causes  consist  in  substances, 
physical  properties,  freewill,  or  chance — by  freewill  I  mean  that  of  man — or 
even  in  the  will  of  another  living  being.  The  prophets  [omit  them  and] 
ascribe  the  production  directly  to  God  and  use  such  phrases  as,  God  has  done 
it,  commanded  it,  or  said  it ;  in  all  such  cases  the  verbs  "  to  say,"  "  to  speak," 
"  to  command,"  "  to  call,"  and  "  to  send  "  are  employed.  What  I  desired  to 
state  in  this  chapter  is  this  :  According  to  the  hypothesis  and  theory  accepted, 
it  is  God  that  gave  will  to  dumb  animals,  freewill  to  the  human  being,  and 
natural  properties  to  everything ;  and  as  accidents  originate  in  the  redundancy 
of  some  natural  force,  as  has  been  explained  [by  Aristode],  and  are  mostly 
the  result  of  the  combined  action  of  nature,  desire,  and  freewill :  it  can  con- 
sequently be  said  of  everything  which  is  produced  by  any  of  these  cause*, 
that  God  commanded  that  it  should  be  made,  or  said  that  it  should  be  so.  I 
will  give  you  instances,  and  they  will  guide  you  in  the  interpretation  of  passages 
which  I  do  not  mention.  As  regards  phenomena  produced  regularly  by 
natural  causes,  such  as  the  melting  of  the  snow  when  the  atmosphere  bccorncs 
warm,  the  roaring  of  the  sea  when  a  storm  rages  [I  quote  the  following 
passages],  "  He  sendcth  his  word  and  melteth  them  "  (Ps.  cxlvii.  18)  ;  *'  And 
he  saith,  and  a  storm-wind  riseth,  and  lifteth  up  its  waves  "  {ibid.  cvii.  25). 
In  reference  to  the  rain  we  read  :  "  I  will  command  the  clouds  that  they 
shall  not  rain,"  etc.  (Isa.  v.  6).  Events  caused  by  man's  freewill,  such  as  war, 
the  dominion  of  one  nation  over  another,  the  attempt  of  one  person  to  hurt 
another,  or  to  insult  him,  [are  ascribed  to  God,  as]  e.g.,  in  reference  to  the 
dominion  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  host,  "  I  have  commended  my  holy 
ones,  also  I  have  called  my  heroes  for  my  anger  "  (Isa.  xni.  3)  ;  and  "  I  wll 
send  him  against  a  hypocrite  nation  "  {ibid.  x.  6)  ;  m  reference  to  Shimci,  son 
of  Gera,  "  For  God  said  to  him,  Curse  David  "  (2  Sam.  xvi.  10) ;  m  reference 


250  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

to  the  deliverance  of  Joseph,  the  righteous,  from  prison,  "  He  sent  an  angel 
and  loosed  him  "  (Ps.  cv.  20)  ;  in  reference  to  the  victory  of  the  Persians 
over  the  Chaldees,  "  I  will  send  to  Babylon  scatterers,  and  they  shall  scatter 
it  "  (Jer.  11.  2) ;  in  reference  to  the  providing  of  food  to  Eliah,  "  I  have  com- 
manded there  a  woman,  a  wddow,  to  maintain  thee  "  (l  Kings  xvii.  9)  ;  and 
Joseph,  the  righteous,  says  :  "  Not  ye  have  sent  me  hither,"  etc.  (Gen.  xlv. 
8).  The  case  that  the  will  of  an  animal  or  its  desire  for  some  of  its  natural 
wants  is  the  cause  of  some  event,  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  instance  : 
"  And  God  spake  unto  the  fish,  and  it  vomited  out  Jonah  "  (ii.  11).  The 
act  is  ascribed  to  God,  because  He  gave  the  fish  the  will,  and  not  because 
He  made  it  a  prophet  or  endowed  it  wath  a  prophetical  spirit.  Similarly  it 
is  said  of  the  locusts  that  appeared  in  the  days  of  Joel,  son  of  Pethuel, 
"  Mighty  is  he  that  accomplishes  his  word  "  (Joel  ii.  ll)  ;  or  of  the  beasts 
that  took  possession  of  the  land  of  Edom  when  destroyed  in  the  days  of 
Sennacherib,  "  He  cast  lot  for  them,  and  his  hand  divided  it  unto  them  by  a 
line  "  (Isa.  xxxiv.  17).  Although  here  the  verbs  "  to  say,"  "  to  command," 
"  to  send,"  are  not  used,  the  meaning  is  evidently  the  same,  and  you  must 
explain  all  passages  that  are  analogous  to  it  in  a  similar  manner.  Events 
evidently  due  to  chance  are  ascribed  to  God  ;  e.g.,  in  reference  to  Rebecca, 
"  Let  her  be  a  wife  to  the  son  of  thy  master,  as  the  Lord  spake  "  (Gen.  xxiv. 
51)  ;  in  reference  to  David  and  Jonathan,  "  Go,  for  the  Lord  has  sent  thee." 
(i  Sam.  XX.  22)  ;  in  reference  to  Joseph,  "  God  sent  me  before  you  "  (Gen. 
xlv.  7).  You  see  clearly  that  the  providing  of  a  cause,  in  whatever  manner 
this  may  take  place,  by  substance,  accident,  freewill,  or  will,  is  always  ex- 
pressed by  one  of  the  five  terms,  commanding,  saying,  speaking,  sending, 
or  calling,  Note  this,  and  apply  it  everywhere  according  to  the  context. 
Many  difficulties  will  thereby  be  removed,  and  passages  apparently  con- 
taining things  far  from  truth  will  prove  to  be  true.  This  is  the  conclusion 
of  the  treatise  on  Prophecy,  its  allegories  and  language.  It  is  all  I  intend 
to  say  on  this  subject  in  this  treatise.  We  will  now  commence  to  treat  of 
other  subjects,  with  the  help  of  the  Most  High. 


PART    III 


INTRODUCTION 

We  have  stated  several  times  that  it  is  our  primary  object  in  this  treatise  to 
expound,  as  far  as  possible,  the  Biblical  account  of  the  Creation  (Maaseh 
bereshii)  and  the  description  of  the  Divine  Chariot  {Ma-aseh  mfrcabah)  in 
a  manner  adapted  to  the  training  of  those  for  whom  this  work  is  written. 

We  have  also  stated  that  these  subjects  belong  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Law. 
You  are  well  aware  how  our  Sages  blame  those  who  reveal  these  mysteries, 
and  praise  the  merits  of  those  who  keep  them  secret,  although  they  are  per- 
fectly clear  to  the  philosopher.  In  this  sense  they  explain  the  passage,  "  Her 
merchandise  shall  be  for  them  that  dwell  before  the  Lord,  to  eat  sufficiently  " 
(Isa.  xxiii.  1 8),  which  concludes  in  the  original  with  the  words  ve-li-me- 
kasseh  'atik,  i.e.,  that  these  blessings  are  promised  to  him  who  hides  thines 
which  the  Eternal  has  revealed  [to  him],  viz.,  the  mysteries  of  the  Law 
(Babyl.  Talmud,  Pesahim  119a).  If  you  have  understanding  you  will 
comprehend  that  which  our  Sages  pointed  out.  They  have  clearly  stated 
that  the  Divine  Chariot  includes  matters  too  deep  and  too  profound  for  the 
ordinary  intellect.  It  has  been  shown  that  a  person  favoured  by  Providence 
with  reason  to  understand  these  mysteries  is  forbidden  by  the  Law  to  teach 
them  except  viva  voce,  and  on  condition  that  the  pupil  possess  certain  quali- 
fications, and  even  then  only  the  heads  of  the  sections  may  be  communicated. 
This  has  been  the  cause  why  the  knowledge  of  this  mystery  has  entirely  dis- 
appeared from  our  nation,  and  nothing  has  remained  of  it.  This  was  un- 
avoidable, for  the  explanation  of  these  mysteries  was  alw.iys  communicated 
viva  voce,  it  was  never  committed  to  writing.  Such  being  the  case,  how  can 
I  venture  to  call  your  attention  to  such  portions  of  it  as  may  be  known, 
intelligible,  and  perfectly  clear  to  me  ?  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  I  were  to 
abstain  from  writing  on  this  subject,  according  to  my  knowledge  of  it,  when  I 
die,  as  I  shall  inevitably  do,  that  knowledge  would  die  with  me,  and  I 
would  thus  inflict  great  injury  on  you  and  all  those  who  arc  perplexed 
[by  these  theological  problems].  I  would  then  be  guilty  of  withholding  the 
truth  from  those  to  whom  it  ought  to  be  communicated,  and  of  jealously 
depriving  the  heir  of  his  inheritance.  I  should  in  either  case  be  guilty  of 
gross  misconduct. 

To  give  a  full  explanation  of  the  mystic  passages  of  the  Bible  is  contrary 
to  the  Law  and  to  reason  ;  besides,  my  knowledge  of  tliem  is  based  on  reason- 
ing, not  on  divine  inspiration  [and  is  therefore  not  infallible].     I  have  not 

2r.i  \. 


252  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

received  my  belief  in  this  respect  from  any  teacher,  but  it  has  been  formed 
by  what  I  learnt  from  Scripture  and  the  utterances  of  our  Sages,  and  by  the 
philosophical  principles  which  I  have  adopted.  It  is  therefore  possible  that 
my  view  is  wrong,  and  that  I  misunderstood  the  passages  referred  to.  Correct 
thought  and  divine  help  have  suggested  to  me  the  proper  method,  viz.,  to 
explain  the  words  of  the  prophet  Ezckiel  in  such  a  manner  that  those  who 
will  read  my  interpretation  will  believe  that  I  have  not  added  anything  to 
the  contents  of  the  text,  but  only,  as  it  were,  translated  from  one  language 
into  another,  or  given  a  short  exposition  of  plain  things.  Those,  however, 
for  whom  this  treatise  has  been  composed,  will,  on  reflecting  on  it  and  thor- 
oughly examining  each  chapter,  obtain  a  perfect  and  clear  insight  into  all 
that  has  been  clear  and  intelligible  to  me.  This  is  the  utmost  that  can  be 
done  in  treating  tliis  subject  so  as  to  be  useful  to  all  without  fully  explain- 
ing it.  _ 

After  this  introductory  remark  I  ask  you  to  study  attentively  the  chapters 
which  follow  on  this  sublime,  important,  and  grand  subject,  which  is  the  pin 
upon  which  everything  hangs,  and  the  pillar  upon  which  everything  rests. 

CHAPTER  I 

It  is  well  known  that  there  are  men  whose  face  is  like  that  of  other  animals ; 
thus  the  face  of  some  person  is  like  that  of  a  lion,  that  of  another  person  like 
that  of  an  ox,  and  so  on  ;  and  man's  face  is  described  according  as  the  form 
of  his  face  resembles  the  form  of  the  face  of  other  animals.  By  the  ex- 
pressions, "  the  face  of  an  ox,"  "  the  face  of  a  lion,"  "  the  face  of  an  eagle  " 
(Ezek,  i.  id),  the  prophet  describes  a  human  face  inclining  towards  the  forms 
of  these  various  species.  This  interpretation  can  be  supported  by  two 
proofs.  First,  the  prophet  says  of  the  llayyot  in  general  that  "  their  appear- 
ance is  this,  they  have  the  form  of  man  "  (ver.  5),  and  then  in  describing  each 
of  the  llayyot  he  attributes  to  them  the  face  of  a  man,  that  of  an  ox,  that  of 
a  lion,  and  that  of  an  eagle.  Secondly,  in  the  second  description  of  the 
Chariot,  which  is  intended  as  a  supplement  to  the  first,  the  prophet  says. 
Each  hath  four  faces ;  the  one  is  the  face  of  a  cherub,  the  second  a  man's 
face,  the  third  a  lion's  face,  and  the  fourth  that  of  an  eagle  {ihii.  x.  14).  He 
tlius  clearly  indicates  that  the  terms  "  the  face  of  an  ox  "  and  "  the  face  of 
a  cherub  "  are  identical.  But  cherub  designates  "  a  youth."  By  analogy 
we  explain  the  two  other  terms — "  the  face  of  a  lion  "  and  "  the  face  of  an 
eagle  "  in  the  same  manner.  "  The  face  of  the  ox  "  has  been  singled  out  on 
account  of  the  etymology  of  the  Hebrew  term  shor  (ox),  as  has  been  indi- 
cated by  me.  It  is  impossible  to  assume  that  this  second  description  refers 
to  the  perception  of  another  prophetic  vision,  because  it  concludes  thus : 
"  This  is  the  Ilayyah  which  I  saw  at  the  river  Chebar  "  {ibid.  ver.  15).  What 
we  intended  to  explain  is  now  clear. 

CHAPTER  II 

The  prophet  says  that  he  saw  four  llayyot ;  each  of  them  had  four  faces, 
four  wings,  and  two  hands,  but  on  the  whole  their  form  was  human.  Comp. 
"  They  had  the  likeness  of  a  man  "  (Ezek.  i.  5).     The  hands  are  also  described 


THE  VISION  01-  li/liKILL  253 

as  human  hands,  because  these  have  uniloubtedly,  as  is  well  known,  $ucli  3 
form  as  enables  them  to  perform  all  manner  of  cunning  work.     Their  feet 
are  straight ;   that  is  to  say,  they  are  without  joints.     'I'his  is  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase  "a  straight  foot,"  taken  literally.     Similarly  our  Sages  say,  the 
words,  "  And  their  feet  were  straight  feet  "  (ibid.  i.  7),  show  that   the  bein^ji 
above  do  not  sit.     Note  this  likewise.     The  soles  of  the  feet  of  the  J/ayyot, 
the  organs  of  walking,  arc  described  as  different  from  the  feet  of  man,  but 
the  hands  are  like  human  hands.     The  feet  are  round,  for  the  prophet  says, 
"  like  the  sole  of  a  round  foot."     The  four  Ilayyot  are  closely   joined  to- 
gether, there  is  no  space  or  vacuum  left  between  them.     Comp.  "  They  were 
joined  one  to  another  "  {ibid.  i.  9).     "  But  although  they  were  thus  joined 
together,  their  faces  and  their  wings  were  separated  above  "  {ibid.  ver.  1 1). 
Consider  the  expression  "  above  "  employed  here,  although  the  bodies  were 
closely  joined,  their  faces  and  their  wings  were  separated,  but  only  above. 
The  prophet  then  states  that  they  are   transparent ;    they  are  "  like  bur- 
nished brass  "  {ibid.  ver.  7).     He  also  adds  that  they  are  luminous.     Comp. 
"  Their  appearance  was  like  burning  coals  of  fire  "  {ibid.  ver.  13).     This  is 
all  that  has  been  said  as  regards  the  form,  shape,  face,  figure,  wings,  hands, 
and  feet  of  the  Hayyot.     The  prophet  then  begins  to  describe  the  motions 
of  these  JJayyot,  namely,  that  they  have  a  uniform    motion,  without   any 
curvature,  deviation,  or  deflexion  :    "  They  turned  not  when  they  went  " 
(ver.  17).      Each  of  the  Hayyot  moves  in  the  direction  of  its  face.      Comp. 
"  They  went  every  one  in  the  direction  of  his  face  "   (ver.  9).     Now,  it   is 
here  clearly  stated  that  each  IJayyah  went  in  the  direction  of  its  face,  but 
since  each //tz>7d/j  has  several  faces,  I  ask,  in  the  direction  of  which  face? 
In  short,  the  four  Hayyot  do  not  move  in  the  same  direction ;   for,  if  this 
were  the  case,  a  special  motion  would  not  have  been  ascribed  to  each  of  them  ; 
it  would  not  have  been  said,  "  They  went  each  one  towards  the  side  of  his 
face."     The  motion  of  these  Hayyot  is  further  described  as  a  running,  so 
also  their  returning  is  described  as  a  running.      Comp.  "  And  the  Ilayyot  ran, 
and  returned  as  the  appearance  of  a  flash  of   lightning  "  (ver.  14),  Ta:;j}h 
being  the  infinitive  of  ruz,  "  to  run,"  and  shob  the  infinitive  instead  of  sUh, 
"  to  "return."     The  ordinary  words,  haloch  and  ho,  "  to  go  "  and  "  to  come," 
are  not  used,  but  such  words  as  indicate  running  to  and  fro  ;   and  these  arc 
further  explained  by  the  phrase,  "  As  the  appearance  of  a  flash  of  lightning  " 
{bazak,  used  by  the  prophet,  is  identical  with  barak),  for  the  lightning  appcan 
to  move  very  quickly  ;   it  seems  to  hasten  and  to  run  from  a  certain  place, 
and  then  to  turn  back  and  to  come  again  to  the  place  from  which  it  had 
started.     This  is  repeated  several  times  with  the  same  velocity.     Jonathan, 
the  son  of  Uzziel,  renders  the  phrase  razo  vashob  thus :    They  move  round 
the  world  and  return  at  once,  and  are  as  swift  as  the  appearance  of  lightning. 
This  quick  movement  and  return  the  IJayyah  does  not  perform  of  its  own 
accord,  but  through  something  outside  of  it,  viz.,  the  Divme  W  ill  ;   for     to 
whichever  side  it  is  the  Divine  Will  that  the  Hayyah  should  move,  thither 
the  Hayyah  moves,"  in  that  quick  manner  which  is  expressed  by  "  runnmg 
and  returning"     This  is  implied  in  the  words.   "  Whithersoever  the  spint 
was  to  go  they  went  "  (ver.  20)  ;  "  They  turned  not  when  they  went  "^  (ver. 
17).     By  "  the  spirit  "  {ruah),  the  prophet  does  not  mean     the  wind,    but 
"  the  intention,"  as  we  have  explained  when  discussing  the  homonym  ruab 


254  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

(spirit).  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  is,  that  whithersoever  it  is  the  Divine 
Will  that  the  Ilayyah  shall  go,  thither  it  runs.  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Uzziel, 
gives  a  similar  explanation  :  Towards  the  place  whither  it  is  the  will  to  go, 
they  go ;  they  do  not  turn  when  they  go.  The  employment  of  the  future 
tense  of  the  verbs  yihyeh  and  yeleku  in  this  passage  seems  to  imply  that 
sometimes  it  will  be  the  will  of  God  that  the  Ilayyah  should  move  in  one 
direction,  in  which  it  will  in  fact  move,  and  at  other  times  it  will  be  His  will 
that  the  Ilayyah  should  move  in  the  opposite  direction,  in  which  it  will  then 
move.  An  explanation  is,  however,  added,  which  is  contrary  to  this  con- 
clusion, and  shows  that  the  future  form  (yihyeh)  of  the  verb  has  here  the 
meaning  of  the  preterite,  as  is  frequently  the  case  in  Hebrew.  The  direction 
in  which  God  desires  the  Hayyah  to  move  has  already  been  determined  and 
fixed,  and  the  Hayyah  moves  in  that  direction  which  His  wiU  has  determined 
long  ago,  without  having  ever  changed.  The  prophet,  therefore,  in  ex- 
plaining, and  at  the  same  time  concluding  [this  description  of  the  Hayyoi\, 
says,  "  Whithersoever  the  spirit  was  to  go  they  go,  thither  was  the  spirit  to 
go  "  (ver.  20).  Note  this  wonderful  interpretation.  This  passage  forms 
likewise  part  of  the  account  of  the  motion  of  the  four  flayyot  which 
follows  the  description  of  their  form. 

Next  comes  the  description  of  another  part ;  for  the  prophet  relates 
that  he  saw  a  body  beneath  the  I/ayyot,  but  closely  joining  them.  This 
body,  which  is  connected  with  the  earth,  consists  likewise  of  four  bodies,  and 
has  also  four  faces.  But  no  distinct  form  is  ascribed  to  it ;  neither  that  of 
man  nor  that  of  any  other  living  being.  The  [four  bodies]  are  described  as 
great,  tremendous,  and  terrible  ;  no  form  is  given  to  them,  except  that  they 
are  covered  with  eyes.  These  are  the  bodies  called  Ofannim  (lit.  wheels). 
The  prophet  therefore  says :  "  Now,  as  I  beheld  the  Ilayyot,  behold  one 
wheel  upon  the  earth  beside  the  living  creatures,  with  his  four  faces  "  (ver.  15). 
He  thus  distinctly  states  that  the  Ofannim  form  a  body,  of  which  the  one 
part  touches  the  Hayyot,  and  the  other  part  the  earth  ;  and  that  the  Of  an 
has  four  faces.  But  he  continues — "  The  appearance  of  the  Ofannim 
(wheels)  and  their  work  was  like  unto  the  colour  of  a  beryl :  and  they  four 
liad  one  likeness  "  (ver.  16).  By  speaking  of  four  Ofannim,  after  having 
mentioned  only  one  Of  an,  the  prophet  indicates  that  the  "  four  faces  "  and 
the  "  four  Ofannim  "  are  identical.  These  four  Ofannim  have  the  same 
form ;  comp.,  "  And  they  four  had  one  likeness."  The  Ofannim  are  then 
described  as  partly  inter-joined  ;  for  "  their  appearance  and  their  work  was 
as  it  were  a  wheel  in  the  middle  of  a  wheel  "  (ver.  16).  In  the  description  of 
the  Hayyot  such  a  phrase,  with  the  term  "  in  the  middle  of  "  (tok)  is  not 
employed.  The  Hayyot  are  partly  joined,  according  to  the  words,  "  they 
were  joined  one  to  another  "  (ver.  1 1)  ;  whilst  in  reference  to  the  Ofannim 
it  is  stated  that  they  are  partly  intermixed,  "  as  it  were  a  wheel  in  the  middle 
of  a  wheel."  The  body  of  the  Ofannim  is  described  as  being  covered  with 
eyes ;  it  is  possible  that  a  body  covered  with  real  eyes  is  here  meant,  or  a 
body  with  different  colours  ['ayin  denoting  "  eye,  "  also  "  colour  "],  as  in  the 
phrase  "  the  colour  thereof  ['eno]  as  the  colour  {ke'en)  of  bdellium  "  (Num. 
xi.  7) ;  or  a  body  filled  with  likenesses  of  things.  In  this  latter  sense  the 
term  'ayin  is  used  by  our  Sages  in  phrases  like  the  following  : — Like  that 
[ke'en]  which  he  has  stolen,  like  that  [ke'en]  which  he  has  robbed ;  or  diflEcrent 


THE  VISION  OF  EZEKIEL  255 

properties  and  qualities  arc  meant,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
'ayin  in  the  passage,  "It  may  he  that  the  Lord  will  look  {bcrtuii)  on  my  con- 
dition "  (2  Sam.  xvi.  12).  So  much  for  the  form  of  the  Ofannim.  Their 
motion  is  described  as  being  without  curvature  and  deviation  ;  as  being 
straight,  without  any  change.  This  is  expressed  in  the  words,  "  When  they 
went,  they  went  upon  their  four  sides :  and  they  turned  not  when  they 
went  "  {E. ;  ver.  17).  The  four  Ofannim  do  not  move  of  their  own  accord,  as 
the  JIayyot,  and  have  no  motion  whatever  of  their  own  ;  they  arc  set  in 
motion  by  other  beings,  as  is  emphatically  stated  twice.  The  f/ayyot  arc 
the  moving  agents  of  the  Ofannim.  The  relation  between  the  Ofan  and  the 
Hayyah  may  be  compared  to  the  relation  between  a  lifeless  body  tied  to  the 
hand  or  the  leg  of  a  living  animal ;  whithersoever  the  latter  moves,  thitlicr 
moves  also  the  piece  of  wood,  or  the  stone,  which  is  tied  to  the  named  limb 
of  the  animal.  This  is  expressed  in  the  following  words : — "  And  when  the 
Hayyot  went,  the  Ofannim  went  by  them  ;  and  when  the  living  creatures 
were  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  the  Ofannim  were  lifted  up  "  (ver.  19)  ;  "  and 
the  Ofannim  were  lifted  up  over  against  them  "  (ver.  20).  And  the  cause 
of  this  is  explained  thus  : — "  The  spirit  of  the  Hayyah  was  in  the  Ofannim  " 
(ibid.).  For  the  sake  of  emphasis  and  further  explanation  the  prophet  adds, 
"  When  those  went,  these  went ;  and  when  those  stood,  these  stood  ;  and 
when  those  were  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  the  Ofannim  were  lifted  up  over 
against  them  ;  for  the  spirit  of  the  Ilayyah  was  in  the  Ofannim  "  (ver.  21). 
The  order  of  these  movements  is  therefore  as  follows : — Whithersoever  it  is 
the  will  of  God  that  the  Hayyot  should  move,  thither  they  move  of  their 
own  accord.  When  the  Jfayyot  move  the  Ofannim  necessarily  follow  them, 
because  they  are  tied  to  them,  and  not  because  they  move  of  their  own  accord 
in  the  direction  in  which  the  JIayyot  move.  This  order  is  expressed  in  the 
words,  "  Whithersoever  the  spirit  was  to  go,  they  went,  thither  was  the 
spirit  to  go  ;  and  the  Ofannim  were  lifted  up  over  against  them  ;  for  the 
spirit  of  the  Ilayyah  was  in  the  Ofannim  "  (ver.  20).  I  have  told  you  that 
Jonathan,  the  son  of  Uzziel,  translates  the  verse  thus,  "  to  the  place  whither 
it  was  the  will  that  the  Hayyot  should  go,"  etc. 

After  having  completed  the  account  of  the  Hayyot,  with  their  form  and 
motion,  and  of  the  Ofannim,  which  are  beneath  the  Hayyot,  connected  with 
them  and  forced  to  move  when  the  Hayyot  move,  the  prophet  begins  to 
describe  a  third  object  which  he  perceived  prophetically,  and  gives  the 
account  of  a  new  thing,  viz.,  of  that  which  is  above  the  J/ayyot.  He  says 
that  the  firmament  is  above  the  four  JIayyot,  above  the  firmament  is  the 
likeness  of  a  throne,  and  over  the  throne  the  likeness  of  the  appearance  of 
man.  This  is  the  whole  account  of  what  the  prophet  perceived  at  first  at 
the  river  Chebar. 

CHAPTER  III 

When  Ezekiel  recalled  to  memory  the  form  of  the  Chariot,  which  he  de- 
scribed in  the  beginning  of  the  book,  the  same  vision  presented  itself  to  him 
a  second  time  ;  in  this  vision  he  was  borne  to  Jerusalem.  He  explains  in 
describing  it  things  which  have  not  been  made  clear  at  first,  e.g.,  he  sub- 
stitutes the  terra  "  cherubim  "  for  Hayyot,  whereby  he  expresses  that  the 


256  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Ifayyot  of  the  first  vision  are  likewise  angels  like   the  cherubim.     He  says, 
therefore  :   "  \\'hcre  the  chcrubims  went,  the  0/atinim  went  by  them  :   and 
when  the  chcrubims  lifted  up  their  wings  to  mount  up  from  the  earth,  the 
same  Ofannim  also  turned  not  from  beside  them  "  (x.  l6).     By  these  words 
he  shows  how  closely  connected  the  two  motions  are  [viz.,  that  of  the  Ilayyot 
and  that  of  the  Ofannim].     The  prophet  adds,  "  This  is  the  Hayyah  that  I 
saw  under  the  God  of  Israel  by  the  river  of  Chebar  ;   and  I  knew  that  they 
were  chcrubims  "  (ver.  20).     He  thus  describes  the  same  forms  and  the  same 
motions,  and  states   that   the  IJayyot  and  the  cherubim  are  identical.      A 
second  point  is  then  made  clear  in  this  second  description,  namely,  that  the 
Ofannim  are  spherical ;    for  the  prophet  says,  "  As  for  the  Ofannim,  it  was 
cried  unto  them  in  my  hearing,  O  sphere"  (ver.  13).     A  third  point  con- 
cerning the  Ofannim  is  illustrated  here  in  the  following  words :    "  To  the 
place  whither  the  head  looked  they  followed  it :    they  turned  not  as  they 
went  "  (ver.  ll).     The  motion  of  the  Ofannim  is  thus  described  as  involun- 
tary, and  directed  "  to  the  place  whither  the  head  looketh  "  ;   and  of  this  it 
is  stated  that  it  moves  "  whither  the  spirit  is  to  go  "  (i.  20).     A  fourth  point 
is  added  concerning  the  Ofannim,  namely,  "And  the  Ofannim  were  full  of  eyes 
round  about,  even  the  Ofannim  that  they  four  had  "  (x.  12).    This  has  not  been 
mentioned  before.     In  this  second  description  there  are  further  mentioned 
"  their  flesh,  and  their  backs,  and  their  hands,  and  their  wings  "  {ibid), 
whilst  in  the  first  account  none  of  tJiese  is  mentioned  ;   and  it  is  only  stated 
that  they  are  bodies.     Though  they  are  endowed  in  the  second  account  with 
flesh,  hands,  and  wings,  no  form  is  given  to  them.     In  the  second  account 
each  of  an  is  attributed  to  a  cherub,  "  one  of  an  by  one  cherub,  and  another 
ofan  by  another  cherub."       The  four  Ilayyot  are  then  described  as  one 
Hayyah  on  account  of  their  interjoining  :    "  This  is  the  Hayyah  that  I  saw 
under  the  God  of  Israel  by  the  river  of  Chebar  "  (ver.  20).     Also  the  Ofamiim, 
though  being  four  in  number,  as  has  been  mentioned,  are  called  "  one  ofan 
upon  the  earth  "  (ver.  15),  because  they  interjoin,  and  "  they  four  have  one 
likeness  "  (ver.   16).     This  is  the  additional  explanation  which  the  second 
vision  gives  of  the  form  of  the  Ilayyot  and  the  Ofannim. 

CHAPTER  IV 

It  is  necessary  to  call  your  attention  to  an  idea  expressed  by  Jonathan,  the 
son  of  Uzziel.  When  he  saw  that  the  prophet  says  in  reference  to  the 
Ofannim,  "  It  was  cried  unto  them  in  my  hearing,  O  gilgal "  ("  sphere  ") 
(x.  13),  he  assumed  that  by  Ofannim  the  heavens  are  meant,  and  rendered 
ofan  by  gilgal,  "  sphere,"  and  ofannim  by  gilgclaya,  "  spheres."  I  have  no 
doubt  that  he  found  a  confirmation  of  his  opinion  in  the  words  of  the  prophet 
that  the  Ofannim  were  like  unto  the  colour  of  tarshish  (ver.  16),  a  colour 
ascribed  to  the  heavens,  as  is  well  known.  When  he,  therefore,  noticed  the 
passage,  "  Now  as  I  beheld  the  Hayyot,  behold  one  Ofan  upon  the  earth  " 
(i.  15),  which  clearly  shows  that  the  Ofannim  were  upon  the  earth,  he  had  a 
difficulty  in  explaining  it  in  accordance  with  his  opinion.  Following,  how- 
ever, his  interpretation,  he  explains  the  terms  ercz,  employed  here  as  denoting 
the  inner  surface  of  the  heavenly  sphere,  which  may  be  considered  as  erez, 
("  earth  "  or  "  below  "),  in  relation  to  all  that  is  above  that  surface.     He 


THE  VISION  OF  EZEKIEL  257 

therefore  translates  the  words  ojan  chad  ba-are^  as  follows  :  "  One  ojan 
was  below  the  height  of  the  licavens."  Consider  what  his  explanation  of  the 
passage  must  be,  I  think  that  he  gave  this  explanation  because  he  thought 
that  gilgal  denotes  in  its  original  meaning  "  heaven."  My  opinion  is  that 
gilgal  means  originally  "anything  rolling";  comp.  "And  I  will  roll  thcc 
\ve-gilgaltika)  down  from  the  rocks  "  (Jcr.  li.  25)  ;  "  and  rolled  {va-yagft)  the 
stone  "  (Gen.  xxix.  10)  ;  the  same  meaning  the  word  has  in  the  phrase  : 
"Like  a  rolling  thing  {galgal)  before  the  whirlwind"  (Isa.  xvii.  13).  The 
poll  of  the  head,  being  round,  is  therefore  called  gulgoh-t ;  and  because 
everything  round  rolls  easily,  every  spherical  tiling  is  called  gilgal  ;  also  the 
heavens  are  called  gilgallim  on  account  of  their  spherical  form.  Thus  our 
Sages  use  the  phrase,  "  It  is  a  wheel  {gilgal)  that  moves  round  the  world  "  ; 
and  a  wooden  ball,  whether  small  or  large,  is  called  gilgal.  If  so,  the  prophet 
merely  intended  by  the  words,  "  As  for  the  Ofannim,  it  is  cried  to  them  in 
my  hearing,  O  sphere  "  {gilgat),  to  indicate  the  shape  of  the  Ofannim,  as 
nothing  has  been  mentioned  before  respecting  their  form  and  shape;  but 
he  did  not  mean  to  say  that  the  Ofannim  are  the  same  as  the  heavens.  The 
term  "  like  tarshish  "  is  explained  in  the  second  account,  in  which  it  is  said 
of  the  Ofannim  :  "  And  the  appearance  of  the  ofannim  was  like  the  colour 
of  tarshish."  This  latter  passage  is  translated  by  Jonathan,  the  son  of  I'/ziel, 
"  like  the  colour  of  a  precious  stone,"  exactly  in  the  same  manner  as  Onkclos 
translates  the  phrase  ke-ma'ose  libnat  ha-sappir,  "  like  the  work  of  the 
whiteness  of  sapphire  "  (Exod.  xxix.  10).  Note  this.  You  will  not  find  it 
strange  that  I  mention  the  explanation  of  Jonathan,  son  of  Uzzicl,  whilst  I 
gave  a  different  explanation  myself ;  for  you  will  find  many  of  the  wise  men 
and  the  commentators  differ  sometimes  from  him  in  the  interpretation  of 
words  and  in  many  things  respecting  the  prophets.  Why  should  it  be  other- 
wise In  these  profound  matters  ?  Besides,  I  do  not  decide  in  favour  of  my 
interpretation.  It  is  for  you  to  learn  both — the  whole  of  his  explanation, 
from  what  I  have  pointed  out  to  you,  and  also  my  own  opinion.  God  knowcth 
which  of  the  two  explanations  is  in  accordance  with  that  which  the  prophet 
intended  to  say. 

CHAPTER  V 

It  is  necessary  to  notice  that  the  plural  marot  elohim,  "  visions  of  God,"  is 
here  used,  and  not  the  singular  march,  "  vision.,"  for  there  were  several  things, 
of  different  kinds,  that  were  perceived  by  the  prophet.  The  following  three 
things  were  perceived  by  him  :  the  Ofannim,  the  J/ayyot,  and  the  man 
above  the  J/ayyot.  The  description  of  each  of  these  visions  is  introduced 
by  the  word  va-ereh,  "  and  I  beheld."  For  the  account  of  the  IJayyot, 
begins,  "And  I  looked  {z'a-ereh),  and  behold  a  whirlwind,"  etc.  (E/ck.  i.  4). 
The  account  of  the  Ofannim  begins :  "  Now  as  I  beheld  {va-erek)  the  IJayyot, 
behold  one  Of  an  upon  the  earth"  (ver.  15).  The  vision  of  that  which  is 
above  the  IJayyot  in  order  and  rank  begins :  "  And  I  saw  {va-ereh)  as  the 
colour  of  the  amber,  etc.,  from  the  appearance  of  his  loins  even  upward  " 
(ver.  27).  The  word  va-ereh,  "  and  I  beheld,"  only  occurs  these  three  times 
in  the  description  of  the  Mercabah.  The  doctors  of  the  Mishnah  have 
already  explained  this  fact,  and  my  attention  was  called  to  it  by  their  re- 


258  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

marks.  For  they  said  that  only  the  two  first  visions,  namely,  that  of  the 
Hayyot  and  the  Ofannim,  might  be  interpreted  to  others  ;  but  of  the  third 
vision,  viz.,  that  of  the  hashmal  and  all  that  is  connected  with  it,  only  the 
heads  of  the  sections  may  be  taught.  Rabbi  [Jehudah],  the  Holy,  is  of 
opinion  that  all  the  three  visions  are  called  ma'aseh  mercabah,  and  nothing 
but  the  heads  of  the  sections  could  be  communicated  to  others.  The  exact 
words  of  the  discussion  are  as  follows  : — Where  does  maaseh  mercahhah  end  ? 
Rabbi  says,  with  the  last  va-ereh  ;  Rabbi  Yizhak  says  it  ends  at  the  word 
hashmal  (ver.  27).  The  portion  from  va-ereh  to  hashmal  may  be  fully 
taught ;  of  that  which  follows,  only  the  heads  of  the  sections ;  according  to 
some  it  is  the  passage  from  va-ereh  to  hashmal,  of  which  the  heads  of  the 
sections  may  be  taught,  but  that  which  follows  may  only  be  studied  by  those 
who  possess  the  capacity,  whilst  those  that  cannot  study  it  by  themselves 
must  leave  it. — It  is  clear  from  the  words  of  our  Sages  that  different  visions 
are  described,  as  may  also  be  inferred  from  the  repetition  of  the  word  va-ereh, 
and  that  these  visions  are  different  from  each  other  in  degree ;  the  last  and 
highest  of  them  is  the  vision  commencing,  "  And  I  saw  as  the  colour  of 
hashmal "  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  divided  figure  of  the  man,  described  as  "  the 
appearance  of  fire,  etc.,  from  the  appearance  of  his  loins  even  upward,  and 
from  the  appearance  of  his  loins  even  downward,"  etc.  There  is  a  difference 
of  opinion  among  our  S.iges  whether  it  is  permitted  to  give  by  way  of  hints 
an  exposition  of  any  part  of  this  third  vision,  or  whether  it  is  prohibited  even 
to  teach  of  it  the  heads  of  the  sections,  so  that  only  the  wise  can  arrive  at 
understanding  it  by  their  own  studies.  You  will  also  notice  a  difference  of 
opinion  among  our  Sages  in  reference  to  the  two  first  visions,  viz.,  that  of  the 
Hayyot  and  that  of  the  Ofannim  whether  these  may  be  taught  explicitly  or 
only  by  way  of  hints,  dark  sayings,  and  heads  of  sections.  You  must  also 
notice  the  order  of  these  three  visions.  First  comes  the  vision  of  the  Hayyot, 
because  they  are  first  in  rank  and  in  the  causal  relation,  as  it  is  said,  "  For  the 
spirit  of  the  Hayyah  was  in  the  Ofannim,''^  and  also  for  other  reasons.  The 
vision  of  the  Ofannim  [comes  next,  and]  is  followed  by  one  which  is  higher 
than  the  Hayyot,  as  has  been  shown.  The  cause  of  this  arrangement  is, 
that  in  study  the  first  two  must  necessarily  precede  the  third,  and  in  fact  they 
lead  to  it. 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  sublime  and  great  subject  which  Ezekicl  by  prophetic  impulse  began 
to  teach  us  in  the  description  of  the  Mercabah,  is  exactly  the  same  which 
Isaiah  taught  us  in  general  outlines,  because  he  did  not  require  all  the  detail. 
Isaiah  says,  "  I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne,  high  and  lifted  up,  and 
his  train  filled  the  temple.  Above  it  stood  seraphims,"  etc.  (Isa.  vi.  I  seq.). 
Our  Sages  have  already  stated  all  this  clearly,  and  called  our  attention  to  it. 
For  they  say  that  the  vision  of  Ezckiel  is  the  same  as  that  of  Isaiah,  and  illus- 
trate their  view  by  the  following  simile  : — Two  men  saw  the  king  riding,  the 
one  a  townsman,  the  other  a  countryman.  The  former,  seeing  that  his 
neighbours  know  well  how  the  king  rides,  simply  tells  them  that  he  saw  the 
king  ;  but  the  villager,  wishing  to  tell  his  friends  things  which  they  do  not 
know,  relates  in  detail  how  the  king  was  riding,  describes  his  followers,  and 


Tin-   VISION  OF  EZEKIEL  250 

the  officers  who  execute  his  order  and  command.  This  remark  ij  a  mwt 
useful  hint  ;  it  is  contained  in  the  following  passage  {llagigah,  13b):  "  Isaiah 
saw  all  that  has  been  seen  by  Ezekicl  ;  Isaiah  is  like  a  townsman  that  scm  the 
king,  Ezekicl  like  a  countryman  that  sees  the  king."  These  words  can  be 
explained  in  the  manner  which  I  have  just  mentioned,  viz.,  the  generation 
of  Isaiah  did  not  require  the  detailed  description  ;  his  account,  "  I  saw  the 
Lord,"  etc.,  sufficed.  The  generation  of  the  Babylonian  exile  wanted  to 
learn  all  the  details.  It  is,  however,  possible  tliat  the  author  of  this  saying 
held  Isaiah  as  more  perfect  than  Ezekicl,  so  that  the  vision  might  have  over- 
awed Ezekicl  and  appeared  fearful  to  him  ;  but  Isaiah  was  so  familiar  with  it 
that  he  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  communicate  it  to  others  as  a  new 
thing,  especially  as  it  was  well  known  to  the  intelligent. 


CHAPTER  VII 

One  of  the  points  that  require  investigation  is  the  connexion  between  the 
vision  of  the  mercabah  and  the  year,  month,  and  day,  and  also  the  place  of 
the  vision.  A  reason  must  be  found  for  this  connexion,  and  we  must  not 
think  that  it  is  an  indifferent  element  in  the  vision.  We  must  consider  the 
words,  "  the  heavens  were  opened  "  (Ezck.  i.  l)  ;  they  give  the  key  to  the 
understanding  of  the  whole.  The  figure  of  opening,  also  that  of  opening 
the  gates,  occurs  frequently  in  the  books  of  the  prophets  ;  e.g.,  "  Open  yc 
the  gates  that  the  righteous  nation  may  enter  in"  (Isa.  ixvi.  2);  "  He 
opened  the  doors  of  heaven  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  23)  ;  "  Lift  them  up,  ye  everlasting 
doors  "  {ibid.  xxiv.  9)  ;  "  Open  to  me  the  gates  of  righteousness,  I  will  go 
into  them,  and  I  will  praise  the  Lord  "  (ibid,  cxviii.  19).  There  arc  many 
other  instances  of  this  kind.  You  must  further  notice  that  the  whole  de- 
scription refers  undoubtedly  to  a  prophetic  vision,  as  it  is  said,  "  And  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  was  there  upon  him  "  (Ezek.  i.  3) ;  and  yet  there  is  a  very 
great  difference  between  the  various  parts  of  the  description,  for  in  the  account 
of  the  Hayyot  the  prophet  does  not  say  four  Hayyot,  but  "  the  likeness  of 
the  four  'jjayyot  "  {ibid.  ver.  5) ;  similarly  he  says,  "  And  the  likeness  of  a 
firmament  was  over  the  heads  of  the  Hayyot  "  ver.  22)  ;  "  as  the  appear- 
ance of  a  sapphire  stone,  the  likeness  of  a  throne,"  and  "  the  likeness  of  the 
appearance  of  man  above  it"  (ver.  26).  In  all  these  instances  the  word 
"  likeness  "  is  used,  whilst  in  the  account  of  the  Ofannim  the  phrases,  "  the 
likeness  of  Ofannim,''  the  "  likeness  of  an  Ofaity"  are  not  employed,  but  they 
are  described  in  a  positive  manner  as  beings  in  actual  existence,  with  their 
real  properties.  The  sentence  "  they  four  had  one  likeness "  must  not 
mislead  you,  for  here  the  word  "  likeness  "  is  not  used  in  the  same  connexion 
or  in  the  same  sense  as  indicated  above.  In  the  description  of  the  last  vision 
the  prophet  confirms  and  explains  this  view.  When  he  commences  to  de- 
scribe the  firmament  in  detail,  he  says,  "  the  firmament,"  without  addmg 
the  words  "  the  likeness  of,"  for  he  says,  "  And  I  looked,  and  behold,  m  the 
firmament  that  was  above  the  head  of  the  cherubims  there  appeared  over 
them  as  it  were  a  sapphire  stone,  as  the  appearance  of  the  likeness  of  a  throne  " 
(x.  1).  Here  the  prophet  speaks  of  "  the  firmament  "  and  not  of  "  the  like- 
ness of  the  firmament,"  as  he  does  when  he  connects  the  firmaracni  witli  the 


26o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

heads  of  the  likeness  of  the  Jfayyot  (i.  22).  But,  as  regards  the  throne,  he 
says,  "  the  likeness  of  a  throne  appeared  over  them,"  in  order  to  indicate 
that  the  firmament  was  first  perceived  and  then  the  likeness  of  the  throne 
was  seen  over  it.     Consider  this  well. 

You  must  further  notice  that  in  the  description  of  the  first  vision  the 
J/ayyot  have  wings  and  at  the  same  time  human  hands,  whilst  in  the  second 
vision,  in  which  the  term  cherubim  is  substituted  for  I/ayyot,  at  first  only 
wings  were  perceived,  and  later  on  human  hands  were  seen.  Comp.  "  And 
there  appeared  in  the  cherubims  the  form  of  a  man's  hand  under  their  wings  " 
(x.  8).  Here  "  form  "  {tabnit)  is  used  instead  of  "  likeness  "  (demut) ;  and 
the  hands  are  placed  under  the  wings.     Note  this. 

Consider  that  in  reference  to  the  ofannim,  the  prophet  says,  le-'ummatam, 
"  over  against  them,"  although  he  does  not  ascribe  to  them  any  form. 

He  further  says,  "  As  the  appearance  of  the  bow  that  is  in  the  cloud  in  the 
day  of  rain,  so  was  the  appearance  of  the  brightness  round  about.  This  was 
the  appearance  of  the  likeness  of  the  glory,"  etc.  (i.  28).  The  substance  and 
true  essence  of  the  bow  described  here  is  well  known.  The  simile  and  com- 
parison is  in  this  case  very  extraordinary,  and  is  undoubtedly  part  of  the 
prophecy  ;  and  note  it  well. 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  likeness  of  man  above  the  throne  is  divided, 
the  upper  part  being  like  the  colour  of  hashmal,  the  lower  part  like  the  appear- 
ance of   fire.     As  regards  the  word  hashmal,  it  has  been  explained  to  be  a 
compound  of  two  words  hash   and    mal,  including  two    different  notions, 
viz.,  hash  signifying  "  swiftness,"  and    mal  denoting  "  pause."     The  two 
different  notions  are  here  joined  in  one  word  in  order  to  indicate  figuratively 
the  two  different  parts,  — the  upper  part  and  the  lower.      We  have  already 
given  a  second  explanation,  namely,  that  hashmal  includes  the  two  notions 
of  speech  and  silence  ;  in  accordance  with  the  saying  of  our  Sages,  "  At  times 
they  are  silent,  at  times  they  speak,"  thus  deriving  hash  of  the  same  root  as 
heheshethi,  "  I   have   been   silent "  (Isa.  xlii.  14)  ;    the  word  hashmal   thus 
includes  two  notions,  and  indicates  "  speech  without  sound."     There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  words,  "  at  times  they  are  silent,  at  times  they  speak,"  refer 
to  a  created  object.     Now  consider  how  they  clearly  stated  that  the  divided 
likeness  of  man  over  the  throne  does  not  represent  God,  who  is  above  the 
whole  chariot,  but  represents  a  part  of  the  creation.     The  prophet  likewise 
says  "  that  is  the  likeness  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  "  ;   but  "  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  "  is  different  from  "  the  Lord  "  Himself,  as  has  been  shown  by  us 
several  times.     All  the  figures  in  this  vision  refer  to  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
to  the  chariot,  and  not  to  Him  who  rides  upon  the  chariot ;  for  God  cannot 
be  compared  to  anything.     Note  this.     I  have  thus  given  you  also  in  this 
chapter  as  much  of  the  heads  of  the  sections  as  will  be  useful  to  you  for  the 
comprehension  of  this  subject,  if  you  fill  out  [the  sections  of]  these  heads. 
If  you  consider  all  that  has  been  said  in  this  part  up  to  this  chapter,  the 
greater  part  of  this  subject  or  the  whole  of  it  will  be  clear  to  you,  except  a 
few  points  and  some  repetitions  the  meaning  of  which  is  unknown.     Perhaps 
further  study  will  help  to  reveal  even  these  things  so  that  nothing  will  remain 
unintelligible. 

Do  not  expect  or  hope  to  hear  from  me  after  this  chapter  a  word  on  this 
subject,  either  explicitly  or  implicitly,  for  all  that  could  be  said  on  it  has  been 


MAN   CAN  CONTROL  HIS  PASSIONS  261 

said,  though  with  great  difficulty  and  struggle.     I  will  now  begin  to  treat  of 
some  of  the  other  subjects  which  I  hope  to  elucidate  in  this  treatise. 

CHAPTF.R  VIII 

Transient  bodies  arc  only  subject  to  destruction  through  their  substance 
and  not  through  their  form,  nor  can  the  essence  of  their  form  be  destroyed  ; 
in  this  respect  they  are  permanent.     The  generic  forms,  as  you  know,  are  all 
permanent  and  stable.     Form  can  only  be  destroyed  accidentally,  i.e.,  on 
account  of  its  connexion  with  substance,  the  true  nature  of  which  consists 
in^thc  property  of  never  being  without  a  disposition  to  receive  form.     This 
is  the  reason  why  no  form  remains  permanently  in  a  substance ;   a  constant 
change  takes  place,  one  form  is  taken  off  and  another  is  put  on.     How  won- 
derfully wise  is  the  simile  of  King  Solomon,  in  which  he  compares  matter  to 
a  faithless  wife  ;    for  matter  is  never  found  without  form,  and  is  therefore 
always  like  such  a  wife  who  is  never  without  a  husband,  never  single  ;   and 
yet,  though  being  wedded,  constantly  seeks  another  man  in  the  place  of  her 
husband  ;  she  entices  and  attracts  him  in  every  possible  manner  till  he  obtains 
from  her  what  her  husband  has  obtained.     The  same  is  the  case  with  matter. 
Whatever  form  it  has,    it  is  disposed  to  receive  another   form  ;   it  never 
leaves  off  moving  and  casting  off  the  form  which  it  has  in  order  to  receive 
another.     The  same  takes  place  when  this  second  form  is  received.     It  is 
therefore  clear  that  all  corruption,  destruction,  or  defect  comes  from  matter. 
Take,  e.g.,  man  ;  his  deformities  and  unnatural  shape  of  limbs ;  all  weakness, 
interruption,  or  disorder  of  his  actions,  whether  innate  or  not,  originate  in 
the  transient  substance,  not  in  the  form.     All  other  living  beings  likewise  die 
or  become  ill  through  the  substance  of  the  body  and  not  through  its  form. 
Man's  shortcomings  and  sins   are  all  due  to  the  substance  of  the  body  and 
not  to  its  form  ;  while  all  his  merits  are  exclusively  due  to  his  form.     Thus 
the  knowledge  of   God,  the  formation  of    ideas,  the  mastery  of    desire  and 
passion,  the  distinction  between  that  which  is  to  be  chosen  and  that  which 
is  to  be  rejected,  all  these  man  owes  to  his  form  ;  but  eating,  drinking,  sexual 
intercourse,  excessive  lust,  passion,  and   all  vices,  have  their  origin  in   the 
substance  of  his  body.     Now  it  was  clear  that  this  was  the  case,— it  was  im- 
possible, according  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  that  substance  should  exist  without 
form,  or  any  of  the  forms  of  the  bodies  without  substance,  and  it  was  necessary 
that  the  very  noble  form  of  man,  wliich  is  the  image  and  likeness  of  G.kI,  as 
has  been  shown  by  us,  should  be  joined  to  the  substance  of  dust  and  darkness, 
the  source  of  all  defect  and  loss.     For  these  reasons  the  Creator  gave  to  the 
form  of  man  power,  rule,  and  dominion  over  the  substance  ;— the  form  can 
subdue  the  substance,  refuse  the  fulfilment  of  its  desires,  and  reduce  them, 
as  far  as  possible,  to  a  just  and  proper  measure.     The  station  of  man  vanes 
according  to  the  exercise  of  this  power.     Some  persons  constantly  strive  to 
choose  that  which  is  noble,  and    to   seek  perpetuation  m  accordance  with 
the  direction  of  their  nobler  part,— their  form  ;   their  thoughts  are  engaged 
in  the  formation  of  ideas,  the  acquisition  of  true  knowledge  about  everything 
and  the  union  with  the  divine  intellect  which  flows  down  upon  them    and 
which  is  the  source  of  man's  form.    Whenever  they  are  led  by  the  w.ints  of  the 
body  to  that  which  is  low  and  avowedly  disgraceful,  they  are  grieved  at  then 


262  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

position,  they  feel  ashamed  and  confounded  at  their  situation.  They  try 
with  all  their  might  to  diminish  this  disgrace,  and  to  guard  against  it  in 
every  possible  way.  They  feci  like  a  person  whom  the  king  in  his  anger 
ordered  to  remove  refuse  from  one  place  to  another  in  order  to  put  him  to 
shame  ;  that  person  tries  as  much  as  possible  to  hide  himself  during  the  time 
of  his  disgrace  ;  he  perhaps  removes  a  small  quantity  a  short  distance  in 
such  a  manner  that  his  hands  and  garments  remain  clean,  and  he  himself  be 
unnoticed  ,by  his  fellow-men.  Such  would  be  the  conduct  of  a  free  man, 
whilst  a  slave  would  find  pleasure  in  such  work  ; — he  would  not  consider  it 
a  great  burden,  but  throw  himself  into  the  refuse,  smear  his  face  and  his 
hands,  carry  the  refuse  openly,  laughing  and  singing.  This  is  exactly  the 
difference  in  the  conduct  of  different  men.  Some  consider,  as  we  just  said, 
all  wants  of  the  body  as  shame,  disgrace,  and  defect  to  which  they  are  com- 
pelled to  attend  ;  this  is  chiefly  the  case  with  the  sense  of  touch,  which  is  a 
disgrace  to  us  according  to  Aristotle,  and  which  is  the  cause  of  our  desire  for 
eating,  drinking,  and  sensuality.  Intelligent  persons  must,  as  much  as  pos- 
sible, reduce  these  wants,  guard  against  them,  feel  grieved  when  satisfying 
them,  abstain  from  speaking  of  them,  discussing  them,  and  attending  to  them 
in  company  with  others.  Man  must  have  control  over  all  these  desires, 
reduce  them  as  much  as  possible,  and  only  retain  of  them  as  much  as  is  in- 
dispensable. His  aim  must  be  the  aim  of  man  as  man,  viz.,  the  formation 
of  ideas,  and  nothing  else.  The  best  and  sublimest  among  them  is  the  idea 
which  man  forms  of  God,  angels,  and  the  rest  of  the  creation  according  to 
his  capacity.  Such  men  are  always  with  God,  and  of  them  it  is  said,  "  Ye 
are  princes,  and  all  of  you  are  children  of  the  Most  High  "  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6). 
This  is  man's  task  and  purpose.  Others,  however,  that  are  separated  from 
God  form  the  multitude  of  fools,  and  do  just  the  opposite.  They  neglect 
all  thought  and  all  reflection  on  ideas,  and  consider  as  their  task  the  culti- 
vation of  the  sense  of  touch, — that  sense  which  is  the  greatest  disgrace  ;  they 
only  think  and  reason  about  eating  and  love.  Thus  it  is  said  of  the  wicked 
who  are  drowned  in  eating,  drinking,  and  love,  "  They  also  have  erred 
through  wane,  and  through  strong  drink  are  out  of  the  way,"  etc.  (Isa.  xxviii. 
7),  "  for  all  tables  are  full  of  vomit  and  filthiness,  so  that  there  is  no  place 
clean  "  (ver.  8)  ;  again,  "And  women  rule  over  them  "  (ibid.  iii.  2), — the  oppo- 
site of  that  which  man  was  told  in  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  "  And  for  thy 
husband  shall  thy  desire  be,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee  "  (Gen.  iii.  16).  The 
intensity  of  their  lust  is  then  described  thus,  "  Every  one  neighed  after  his 
neighbour's  wife,"  etc.  (Jer.  v.  8)  ;  "  they  are  all  adulterers,  an  assembly  of 
treacherous  men  "  (ibid.  ix.  2).  The  whole  book  of  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon 
treats  of  this  subject,  and  exhorts  to  abstain  from  lust  and  intemperance. 
These  two  vices  ruin  those  that  hate  God  and  keep  far  from  Him  ;  to  them 
the  following  passages  may  be  applied,  "  They  are  not  the  Lord's  "  (ibid.  v. 
10)  ;  "  Cast  them  out  of  my  sight,  and  let  them  go  forth  "  (ibid.  xv.  l).  As 
regards  the  portion  beginning,  "  Who  can  find  a  virtuous  woman  ?  "  it  is 
clear  what  is  meant  by  the  figurative  expression,  "  a  virtuous  woman." 
When  man  possesses  a  good  sound  body  that  does  not  overpower  him  nor 
disturb  the  equilibrium  in  him,  he  possesses  a  divine  gift.  In  short,  a  good 
constitution  facilitates  the  rule  of  the  soul  over  the  body,  but  it  is  not  im- 
possible to  conquer  a  bad  constitution  by  trainings     for  this  reason  King 


MAN  CAN  CONTROL    HIS  PASSIONS  263 

Solomon  and  others  wrote  the  moral  lessons ;    also  all  the  commandment* 
and  exhortations  in  the  Pentateuch  aim    at   conquering  the  desires  of  the 
body.     Those  who  desire  to  be  men  in  truth,  and  not  brutes,  having  only 
the  appearance  and  shape  of  men,  must  constantly  endeavour  to  reduce  the 
wants    of    the    body,  such    as   eating,    love,  drinking,  anger,  and   all  vice* 
originating   in  lust  and  passion  ;    they  must  feel  ashamed  of  them  and  set 
limits  to  them  for  themselves.     As  for  eating  and  drinking  in  so  far  as  it  is 
indispensable,  they  will  eat  and  drink  only  as  much  as  is  useful  and  necessary 
as  food,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  pleasure.      They  will  also  speak  little  of 
these  things,  and  rarely  congregate  for  such  purposes.     Thus  our  Sages,  as 
is  well  known,  kept  aloof  from  a  banquet  that  was  not  part  of  a  religious  act, 
and  pious  men  followed  the  example  of  R.  Phinehas,  son  of  Jair.  who  never 
dined  with  other  persons,  and  even  refused  to  accept  an  invitation  of  R. 
Jehudah,  the  Holy.     Wine  may  be  treated  as  food,  if  taken  as  such,  but  to 
form  parties  for  the  purpose  of  drinking  wine  together  must  be  considered 
more  disgraceful  than  the  unrestrained  conduct  of  persons  who  in  daylight 
meet  in  the  same   house  undressed  and  naked.      For  the   natural    action 
of  the  digestive  organ  is  indispensable  to  man,  he  cannot  do  without  it ; 
whilst  drunkenness  depends  on  the  free  will  of  an  evil  man.     To  appear  naked 
in  the  presence  of  other  people  is  misconduct  only  according  to  public 
opinion,  not  according  to  the  dictates  of  reason,  whilst  drunkenness,  which 
ruins  the  mind  and  the  body  of  man,  reason  stamps  as  a  vice.      You,  there- 
fore, who  desire  to  act  as  human  beings  must  keep  away  from  it,  and  even 
from  speaking  of  it.     On  sexual  intercourse,  I  need  not  add  anything  after  I 
have  pointed  out  in  the  commentary  on  Jbot  (i.  17)  how  it|  is  treated   by 
our  Law,  which  is  the  teaching  of  pure  wisdom — no  excuse  whatever  should 
induce  us  to  mention  it  or  to   speak  of  it.     Thus  our  Sages  said,  that  Elisha 
the  prophet  is  called  holy,  because  he  did  not  think  of  it,  and  consequently 
never  found  himself  polluted  wath  semen.     In  a  similar  manner  they  say 
that  Jacob  had  the  first  issue  of  semen  for  the  conception  of  Reuben.     All 
these  traditional  stories  have  the  object  of  teaching  the  nation  humane  con- 
duct.    There  is  a  well-known  saying  of  our  Sages,  "  The  thoughts  about 
the  sin  are  more  dangerous  than  the  sin  itself."  I  can  offer  a  good  explanation 
of  this  saying  :   When  a  person  is  disobedient,  this  is  due  to  certain  accidents 
connected  with  the  corporeal  element  in  his  constitution  ;  for  man  sins  only 
by  his  animal  nature,  whereas  thinking  is  a  faculty  of  man  connected  with  his 
form, — a  person  who  thinks  sinfully  sins  therefore  by  means  of  the  nobler 
portion  of  his  self ;    and   he  who  wrongly  causes  a  foolish   slave   to  work 
does  not  sin  as  much  as  he  who  wrongly  causes  a  noble  and  free  man  to  do 
the  work  of  a  slave.     For  this  specifically  human  element,  with  all  its  pro- 
perties and  powers,  should  only  be  employed  in  suitable  work,  in  attempt* 
to  join  higher  beings,  and  not  in  attempts  to  go  down  and  reach  the  lower 
creatures.     You  know  how  we  condemn  lowness  of  speech,  and  justly  so,  for 
speech  is  likewise  peculiar  to  man  and  a  boon  which  God  granted  to  him  that 
he  may  be  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  living  creatures.     Thus  God  says, 
"  Who  gave  a  mouth  to  man  ?  "  (Exod.  iv.  11)  ;    and  the  prophet  declares. 
"  The  Lord  God  hath  given  me  a  learned  tongue  "  (Isa.  I.  4).     This  gift, 
therefore,  which  God  gave  us  in  order  to  enable  us  to  perfect  ourselves,  t<7 
learn  and  to  teach,  must  not  be  employed  in  doing  that  which  is  for  us  most 


264  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

degrading  and  perfectly  disgraceful ;  wc  must  not  imitate  the  songs  and 
tales  of  ignorant  and  lascivious  people.  It  may  be  suitable  to  them,  but 
is  not  fit  for  those  who  are  told,  "  And  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
priests  and  a  holy  nation  "  (Exod.  xii.  6).  Those  who  employ  the  faculty 
of  thinking  and  speaking  in  the  service  of  that  sense  which  is  no  honour  to  us, 
who  think  more  than  necessary  of  drink  and  love,  or  even  sing  of  these  things ; 
they  employ  and  use  the  divine  gift  in  acts  of  rebellion  against  the  Giver,  and 
in  the  transgression  of  His  commandments.  To  them  the  following  words 
may  be  applied  :  "  And  I  multiplied  her  silver  and  gold,  which  they  pre- 
pared for  Baal  "  (Hos.  ii.  lo).  I  have  also  a  reason  and  cause  for  calling  our 
language  the  holy  language — do  not  think  it  is  exaggeration  or  error  on  my 
part,  it  is  perfectly  correct — the  Hebrew  language  has  no  special  name  for 
the  organ  of  generation  in  females  or  in  males,  nor  for  the  act  of  generation 
itself,  nor  for  semen,  nor  for  secretion.  The  Hebrew  has  no  original  ex- 
pressions for  these  things,  and  only  describes  them  in  figurative  language  and 
by  way  of  hints,  as  if  to  indicate  thereby  that  these  things  should  not  be  men- 
tioned, and  should  therefore  have  no  names ;  we  ought  to  be  silent  about 
them,  and  when  we  are  compelled  to  mention  them,  we  must  manage  to 
employ  for  that  purpose  some  suitable  expressions,  although  these  are  gener- 
ally used  in  a  different  sense.  Thus  the  organ  of  generation  in  males  is  called 
in  Hebrew  gtd,  which  is  a  figurative  term,  reminding  of  the  words,  "  And  thy 
neck  is  an  iron  sinew  "  (gid)  (Isa.  xlviii.  4).  It  is  also  called  shupka,  "  pouring 
out  "  (Deut.  xxiii.  2),  on  account  of  its  function.  The  female  organ  is  called 
kobah  (Num.  xxv.  8),  from  kebah  (Deut.  xviii.  3),  which  denotes  "  stomach  "  ; 
rehem,"  womb,"  is  the  inner  organ  in  which  the  foetus  develops ;  zoah  (Isa.  xxviii. 
8),  "  refuse,"  is  derived  from  the  verb  yaza,  "  he  went  out " ;  for  "  urine  "  the 
phrase  meme  raglayim,  "  the  water  of  the  feet "  (2  Kings,  xviii.  17),  is  used  ; 
semen  is  expressed  by  shikbat  z^ra',  "  a  layer  of  seed."  For  the  act  of 
generation  there  is  no  expression  whatever  in  Hebrew  ;  it  is  described  by  the 
following  words  only  :  ba^al,  "  he  was  master  "  ;  shakab,  "  he  lay  "  ;  lakah, 
"  he  took  "  ;  gillah  'ervah,  "  he  uncovered  the  nakedness."  Be  not  misled  by 
the  word  yishgalcnnah  (Deut.  xxviii.  30),  to  take  it  as  denoting  that  act ;  this 
is  not  the  case,  for  shegal  denotes  a  female  ready  for  cohabitation.  Comp. 
"  Upon  thy  right  hand  did  stand  the  maiden  "  {shegal)  "  in  gold  of  Ophir  " 
(Ps.  xlv.  10).  Tishgalennah,  according  to  the  Kethib,  denotes  therefore 
"  he  will  take  the  female  for  the  purpose  of  cohabitation." 

We  have  made  in  the  greater  part  of  this  chapter  a  digression  from  the 
theme  of  this  treatise,  and  introduced  some  moral  and  religious  matter, 
although  they  do  not  entirely  belong  to  the  subject  of  this  treatise,  but  the 
course  of  the  discussion  has  led  to  it. 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  corporeal  clement  in  man  is  a  large  screen  and  partition  that  prevents 
him  from  perfectly  perceiving  abstract  ideals  ;  this  would  be  the  case  even 
if  the  corporeal  element  were  as  pure  and  superior  as  the  substance  of  the 
spheres ;  how  much  more  must  this  be  the  case  with  our  dark  and  opaque 
body.  However  great  the  exertion  of  our  mind  may  be  to  comprehend  the 
Divine  Being  or  any  of  the  ideals,  we  find  a  screen  and  partition  between  Him 


ON  Till-:  EVILS  -O3 

and  ourselves.  Tims  the  proplicts  frequently  hint  at  the  existence  of  a  par- 
tition between  God  and  us.  TJicy  say  He  is  concealed  from  us  in  vajxjiir», 
in  darkness,  in  mist,  or  in  a  thick  cloud  ;  or  use  similar  figures  to  express  that 
on  account  of  our  bodies  we  are  unable  to  comprehend  His  essence.  This  is 
the  meaning  of  the  words,  "Clouds  and  darkness  arc  round  about  Him" 
(Ps.  xcvii.  2).  The  prophets  tell  us  that  the  difliculty  consists  in  tlie  grois- 
ness  of  our  substance  ;  they  do  not  imply,  as  might  be  gathered  from  the 
literal  meaning  of  their  words,  that  God  is  corporeal,  and  is  invisible  because 
He  is  surrounded  by  thick  clouds,  vapours,  darkness,  or  mist.  This  figure  is 
also  expressed  in  the  passage,  "He  made  darkness  His  secret  place"  (Ps. 
xviii.  12).  The  object  of  God  revealing  Himself  in  thick  clouds,  darkness, 
vapours,  and  mist  was  to  teach  this  lesson  ;  for  every  proplietic  vision  con- 
tains some  lesson  by  means  of  allegory  ;  that  mighty  vision,  therefore,  though 
the  greatest  of  all  visions,  and  above  all  comparison,  viz.,  His  revelation  in  a 
thick  cloud,  did  not  take  place  without  any  purpose,  it  was  intended  to  in- 
dicate that  we  cannot  comprehend  Him  on  account  of  the  dark  body  thai 
surrounds  us.  It  does  not  surround  God,  because  He  is  incorporeal.  A 
tradition  is  current  among  our  people  that  the  day  of  the  revelation  on 
Mount  Sinai  was  misty,  cloudy,  and  a  little  rainy.  Comp.  "  Lord,  when 
thou  wentest  forth  from  Seir,  when  thou  marchedst  out  of  the  field  of  Kdom, 
the  earth  trembled,  and  the  heavens  dropped  water  "  (Judges  v.  4).  The  same 
idea  is  expressed  by  the  words  "  darkness,  clouds,  and  thick  darkness  "  (Ueut. 
iv.  11).  The  phrase  does  not  denote  that  darkness  surrounds  God,  for  with 
Him  there  is  no  darkness,  but  the  great,  strong,  and  permanent  light,  which, 
emanating  from  Him,  illuminates  all  darkness,  as  is  expressed  by  the  prophetic 
simile,  "  And  the  earth  shined  with  His  glory  "  (Ezek.  xliii.  2). 

CHAPTER  X 

The  Mutakallemim,  as  I  have  already  told  you,  apply  the  term  non-existence 
only  to  absolute  non-existence,  and  not  to  the  absence  of  properties.  A 
property  and  the  absence  of  that  property  are  considered  by  them  as  two 
opposites,  they  treat,  e.g.,  blindness  and  sight,  death  and  life,  in  the  same 
way  as  heat  and  cold.  Therefore  they  say,  without  any  qualification,  non- 
existence does  not  require  any  agent,  an  agent  is  required  when  som/thng  is 
produced.  From  a  certain  point  of  view  this  is  correct.  .Although  they 
hold  that  non-existence  does  not  require  an  agent,  they  say  in  accordance 
with  their  principle  that  God  causes  blindness  and  deafness,  and  gives  rest  to 
anything  that  moves,  for  they  consider  these  negative  conditions  as  positive 
properties.  We  must  now  state  our  opinion  in  accordance  with  the  results 
of  philosophical  research.  You  know  tliat  he  who  removes  the  obstacle  of 
motion  is  to  some  extent  the  cause  of  the  motion,  e.g.,  if  one  removes  the 
pillar  which  supports  the  beam  he  causes  the  beam  to  move,  as  has  been  staled 
by  Aristotle  in  his  P^za  (VHI.,  chap,  iv.) ;  in  this  sense  wc  s.iyof  him  who 
removed  a  certain  property  that  he  produced  the  absence  of  that  property, 
although  absence  of  a  property  is  nothing  positive.  Just  as  wc  say  of  him 
who  puts  out  the  light  at  night  that  he  has  produced  darkness,  so  wc  say  of 
him  who  destroyed  the  sight  of  any  being  that  he  produced  blindness, 
although  darkness  and  blindness  are  negative  properties,  and  require  no  agent. 


266  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

In  accordance  with  this  view  we  explain  the  following  passage  of  Isaiah  : 
"  I  form  the  light  and  create  (bore)  darkness :  I  make  peace,  and  create  (bore) 
evil  "  (Isa.  xlv.  7),  for  darkness  and  evil  are  non-existing  things.  Considet 
that  the  prophet  does  not  say,  I  make  ('oseh)  darkness,  I  make  ('oseh)  evil,  be- 
cause darkness  and  evil  are  not  things  in  positive  existence  to  which  the  verb 
"  to  make  "  would  apply  ;  the  verb  hara  "  he  created  "  is  used,  because  in 
Hebrew  this  verb  is  applied  to  non-existing  things,  e.g.,  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created "  (bara),  etc.  ;  here  the  creation  took  place  from  nothing. 
Only  in  this  sense  can  non-existence  be  said  to  be  produced  by  a  certain  action 
of  an  agent.  In  the  same  way  we  must  explain  the  folloviang  passage  : 
"  Who  hath  made  man's  mouth  ?  or  who  maketh  the  dumb,  or  the  deaf,  or 
the  seeing,"  etc.  (Exod.  iv.  1 1).  The  passage  can  also  be  explained  as  follows  : 
Who  has  made  man  able  to  speak  ?  or  can  create  him  without  the  capacity 
of  speaking,  i.e.,  create  a  substance  that  is  incapable  of  acquiring  this  pro- 
perty ?  for  he  who  produces  a  substance  that  cannot  acquire  a  certain  pro- 
perty may  be  called  the  producer  of  that  privation.  Thus  we  say,  if  any  one 
abstains  from  delivering  a  fcUow-man  from  death,  although  he  is  able  to  do 
so,  that  he  killed  him.  It  is  now  clear  that  according  to  all  these  different 
views  the  action  of  an  agent  cannot  be  directly  connected  with  a  thing  that 
does  not  exist ;  only  indirectly  is  non-existence  described  as  the  result  of 
the  action  of  an  agent,  whilst  in  a  direct  manner  an  action  can  only  influence 
a  thing  really  in  existence  ;  accordingly,  whoever  the  agent  may  be,  he  can 
only  act  upon  an  existing  thing. 

After  this  explanation  you  must  recall  to  memory  that,  as  has  been  proved, 
the  [so-called]  evils  are  evils  only  in  relation  to  a  certain  thing,  and  that  which 
is  evil  in  reference  to  a  certain  existing  thing,  either  includes  the  non-existence 
of  that  thing  or  the  non-existence  of  some  of  its  good  conditions.  The  pro- 
position has  therefore  been  laid  down  in  the  most  general  terms,  "  All  evils 
are  negations."  Thus  for  man  death  is  evil ;  death  is  his  non-existence. 
Illness,  poverty,  and  ignorance  are  evils  for  man  ;  all  these  are  privations 
of  properties.  If  you  examine  all  single  cases  to  which  this  general  proposi- 
tion applies,  you  will  find  that  there  is  not  one  case  in  which  the  proposition 
is  wrong  except  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  do  not  make  any  distinction  be- 
tween negative  and  positive  properties,  or  between  two  opposites,  or  do  not 
know  the  nature  of  things, — who,  e.g.,  do  not  know  that  health  in  general 
denotes  a  certain  equilibrium,  and  is  a  relative  term.  The  absence  of  that 
relation  is  illness  in  general,  and  death  is  the  absence  of  life  in  the  case  of  any 
animal.  The  destruction  of  other  things  is  likewise  nothing  but  the  absence 
of  their  form. 

After  these  propositions,  it  must  be  admitted  as  a  fact  that  it  cannot  be 
said  of  God  that  He  directly  creates  evil,  or  He  has  the  direct  intention  to 
produce  evil ;  this  is  impossible.  His  works  are  all  perfectly  good.  He 
only  produces  existence,  and  all  existence  is  good  ;  whilst  evils  are  of  a 
negative  character,  and  cannot  be  acted  upon.  Evil  can  only  be  attributed 
to  Him  in  the  way  we  have  mentioned.  He  creates  evil  only  in  so  far  as  He 
produces  the  corporeal  element  such  as  it  actually  is ;  it  is  always  connected 
vnth  negatives,  and  is  on  that  account  the  source  of  all  destruction  and  all  evil. 
Those  beings  that  do  not  possess  this  corporeal  element  are  not  subject  to 
destruction  or  evil ;  consequently  the  true  work  of  God  is  all  good,  since  it 


ON  THE  EVILS  267 

is  existence.  The  book  wliich  enlightened  the  darkness  of  the  world  uyi 
therefore,  "And  God  saw  everytliing  that  He  had  made,  and,  Ix-hoUl,  it 
was  very  good  "  (Gen.  i.  31).  Even  the  existence  of  this  corporeal  clement, 
low  as  it  in  reality  is,  because  it  is  the  source  of  death  and  all  evils,  is  likewise 
good  for  the  permanence  of  the  Universe  and  the  continuation  of  the  order 
of  things,  so  that  one  thing  departs  and  the  other  succeeds.  Rabbi  Mcir 
therefore  explains  the  words  "  and  behold  it  was  very  good  "  {tob  mfod)  ; 
that  even  death  was  good  in  accordance  with  what  we  have  observed  in  this 
chapter.  Remember  what  I  said  in  this  chapter,  consider  it,  and  you  will 
understand  all  that  the  prophets  and  our  Sages  remarked  about  the  perfect 
goodness  of  all  the  direct  works  of  God.  In  Bercshit  Rahba  (chap,  i.)  the 
same  idea  is  expressed  thus  :  "  No  evil  comes  down  from  above." 

CHAPTER  XI 

All  the  great  evils  which  men  cause  to  each  other  because  of  certain  inten- 
tions, desires,  opinions,  or  religious  principles,  are  likewise  due  to  non-exist- 
ence, because  they  originate  in  ignorance,  which  is  absence  of  wisdom.  A. 
blind  man,  for  example,  who  has  no  guide,  stumbles  constantly,  because  he 
cannot  see,  and  causes  injury  and  harm  to  himself  and  others.  In  the  same 
manner  various  classes  of  men,  each  man  in  proportion  to  his  ignorance, 
bring  great  evils  upon  themselves  and  upon  other  individual  members  of  the 
species.  If  men  possessed  vidsdom,  which  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
form  of  man  as  the  sight  to  the  eye,  they  would  not  cause  any  injury  to  them- 
selves or  to  others ;  for  the  knowledge  of  truth  removes  hatred  and  quarrels, 
and  prevents  mutual  injuries.  This  state  of  society  is  promised  to  us  by  the 
prophet  in  the  words :  "  And  the  wolf  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,"  etc. ;  "  and 
the  cow  and  the  bear  shall  feed  together,"  etc. ;  and  "  the  sucking  child  shall 
play  on  the  hole  of  the  asp,"  etc.  (Isa.  xi.  6  seq).  The  prophet  also  points 
out  what  will  be  the  cause  of  this  change ;  for  he  says  that  hatred,  quarrel, 
and  fighting  will  come  to  an  end,  because  men  will  then  have  a  true  know- 
ledge of  God.  "  They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy  mountain  : 
for  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  die  waters  cover 
the  sea  "  (ibid.  ver.  9).     Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XII 

Men  frequently  think  that  the  evils  in  the  world  are  more  numerous  than 
the  good  things ;  many  sayings  and  songs  of  the  nations  dwell  on  this  idea. 
They  say  that  a  good  tiling  is  found  only  exceptionally,  whilst  evil  thmgu  arc 
num'crous  and  lasting.  Not  only  common  people  make  this  mistake,  but 
even  many  who  believe  that  they  are  wise.  Al-Razi  wrote  a  well-known 
book  On  Metaphysics  [or  Theology].  Among  other  mad  and  foohsh  thmgs, 
it  contains  also  the  ided,  discovered  by  him,  that  there  exists  more  evil  than 
good.  For  if  the  happiness  of  man  and  his  pleasure  in  the  times  of  pros- 
perity be  compared  with  the  mishaps  that  befall  him,— such  as  grief,  acute  pain, 
defects,  paralysis  of  the  limbs,  fears,  anxieties,  and  troubles,— it  would  seem  as 
if  the  existence  of  man  is  a  punishment  and  a  great  evil  for  him.  This  author 
commenced  to  verify  his  opinion  by  counting  all  the  evils  one  by  one ;  by 


-68  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

this  means  he  opposed  those  who  hold  the  correct  view  of  the  benefits  be- 
stowed by  God  and  His  evident  kindness,  viz.,  that  God  is  perfect  goodness, 
and  that  all  that  comes  from  Him  is  absolutely  good.  The  origin  of  the 
error  is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstance  that  this  ignorant  man,  and  his  party 
among  the  common  people,  judge  the  whole  universe  by  examining  one 
single  person.  For  an  ignorant  man  believes  that  the  whole  universe  only 
exists  for  him  ;  as  if  nothing  else  required  any  consideration.  If,  therefore, 
anything  happens  to  him  contrary  to  his  expectation,  he  at  once  concludes 
that  the  whole  universe  is  evil.  If,  however,  he  would  take  into  consider- 
ation the  whole  universe,  form  an  idea  of  it,  and  comprehend  what  a  small 
portion  he  is  of  the  Universe,  he  will  find  the  truth.  For  it  is  clear  that 
persons  who  have  fallen  into  this  widespread  error  as  regards  the  multitude 
of  evils  in  the  world,  do  not  find  the  evils  among  the  angels,  the  spheres  and 
stars,  the  elements,  and  that  which  is  formed  of  them,  viz.,  minerals  and 
plants,  or  in  the  various  species  of  living  beings,  but  only  in  some  individual 
instances  of  mankind.  They  wonder  that  a  person,  who  became  leprous 
in  consequence  of  bad  food,  should  be  afflicted  with  so  great  an  illness  and 
suffer  such  a  misfortune  ;  or  that  he  who  indulges  so  much  in  sensuality  as 
to  weaken  his  sight,  should  be  struck  with  blindness !  and  the  like.  What 
we  have,  in  truth,  to  consider  is  this : — The  whole  mankind  at  present  in 
existence,  and  a  fortiori,  every  other  species  of  animals,  form  an  infinitesimal 
portion  of  the  permanent  universe.  Comp.  "  Man  is  like  to  vanity  "  (Ps. 
cxliv.  4)  ;  "  How  much  less  man,  that  is  a  worm  ;  and  the  son  of  man,  which 
is  a  worm  "  (Job  xxv.  6)  ;  "  How  much  less  in  them  who  dwell  in  houses  of 
clay  "  {ibid.  iv.  19)  ;  "  Behold,  the  nations  are  as  a  drop  of  the  bucket  "  (Isa. 
xl.  15).  There  are  many  other  passages  in  the  books  of  the  prophets  express- 
ing the  same  idea.  It  is  of  great  advantage  that  man  should  know  his  station, 
and  not  erroneously  imagine  that  the  whole  universe  exists  only  for  him. 
We  hold  that  the  universe  exists  because  the  Creator  wills  it  so  ;  that  man- 
kind is  low  in  rank  as  compared  with  the  uppermost  portion  of  the  universe, 
viz.,  with  the  spheres  and  the  stars  ;  but,  as  regards  the  angels,  there  cannot 
be  any  real  comparison  between  man  and  angels,  although  man  is  the  highest 
of  all  beings  on  earth  ;  i.e.,  of  all  beings  formed  of  the  four  elements.  Alan's 
existence  is  nevertheless  a  great  boon  to  him,  and  his  distinction  and  per- 
fection is  a  divine  gift.  The  numerous  evils  to  which  individual  persons  are 
exposed  are  due  to  the  defects  existing  in  the  persons  themselves.  We 
complain  and  seek  relief  from  our  own  faults ;  we  suffer  from  the  evils  which 
we,  by  our  own  free  will,  inflict  on  ourselves  and  ascribe  them  to  God,  who 
is  far  from  being  connected  with  them !  Comp.  "  Is  destruction  his 
[work]  ?  No.  Ye  [who  call  yourselves]  wrongly  his  sons,  you  who  are  a 
perverse  and  crooked  generation  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  5).  This  is  explained  by 
Solomon,  who  says,  "  The  foolishness  of  man  perverteth  his  way,  and  his 
heart  fretteth  against  the  Lord  "  (Prov.  xix.  3). 

I  explain  this  theory  in  the  following  manner.  The  evils  that  befall  man 
are  of  three  kinds : — 

(l)  The  first  kind  of  evil  is  that  which  is  caused  to  man  by  the  circumstance 
that  he  is  subject  to  genesis  and  destruction,  or  that  he  possesses  a  body.  It 
is  on  account  of  the  body  that  some  persons  happen  to  have  great  deformities 
or  paralysis  of  some  of  the  organs.     This  evil  may  be  part  of  the  natural  con- 


ON  Tin-   EVILS  260 

stitution  of  these  persons,  or  may  have  developed  subsequently  in  consc- 
qacnce  of  changes  in  the  elements,  e.g.,  througii  bad  air,  or  ihundcrstorms, 
or  landslips.  We  have  already  shown  that,  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
wisdom,  genesis  can  only  take  place  through  destruction,  and  without  the 
destruction  of  the  individual  members  of  the  species  the  species  thcmsclvc* 
would  not  exist  permanently.  Thus  the  true  kindness,  and  beneficence, 
and  goodness  of  God  is  clear.  He  who  thinks  that  he  can  have  flesh  and 
bones  without  being  subject  to  any  external  influence,  or  any  of  the  accidents 
of  matter,  unconsciously  wishes  to  reconcile  two  oppositcs,  viz.,  to  be  at  the 
same  time  subject  and  not  subject  to  change.  If  man  were  never  subject 
to  change  there  could  be  no  generation  ;  there  would  be  one  single  being, 
but  no  individuals  forming  a  species.  Galen,  in  the  third  section  of  his  book, 
The  Use  of  the  Limbs,  says  correctly  that  it  would  be  in  vain  to  expect  to  sec 
living  beings  formed  of  the  blood  of  menstruous  women  and  the  semen  virile, 
who  will  not  die,  will  never  feel  pain,  or  will  move  perpetually,  or  will  shine 
like  the  sun.  This  dictum  of  Galen  is  part  of  the  following  more  general  pro- 
position : — Whatever  is  formed  of  any  matter  receives  the  most  perfect  form 
possible  in  that  species  of  matter ;  in  each  individual  case  the  defects  are  in 
accordance  with  the  defects  of  that  individual  matter.  The  best  and  most 
perfect  being  that  can  be  formed  of  the  blood  and  the  semen  is  the  species  of 
man,  for  as  far  as  man's  nature  is  known,  he  is  living,  reasonable,  and  mortal. 
It  is  therefore  impossible  that  man  should  be  free  from  this  species  of  evil. 
You  will,  nevertheless,  find  that  the  evils  of  the  above  kind  which  befall  man 
are  very  few  and  rare  ;  for  you  find  countries  that  have  not  been  flooded  or 
burned  for  thousands  of  years ;  there  are  thousands  of  men  in  perfect  health, 
deformed  individuals  are  a  strange  and  exceptional  occurrence,  or  say  few 
in  number  if  you  object  to  the  term  exceptional, — they  are  not  one-hun- 
dredth, not  even  one-thousandth  part  of  those  that  are  perfectly  normal. 

(2)  The  second  class  of  evils  comprises  such  evils  as  people  cause  to  each 
other,  when,  e.g.,  some  of  them  use  their  strength  against  others.  These 
evils  are  more  numerous  than  those  of  the  first  kind  ;  their  causes  arc  numer- 
ous and  known  ;  they  likewise  originate  in  ourselves,  though  the  sufferer 
himself  cannot  avert  them.  This  kind  of  evil  is  nevertheless  not  widespread 
in  any  country  of  the  whole  world.  It  is  of  rare  occurrence  that  a  man  plans 
to  kill  his  neighbour  or  to  rob  him  of  his  property  by  night.  Many  persons 
are,  however,  afflicted  with  this  kind  of  evil  in  great  wars ;  but  these  arc  not 
frequent,  if  the  whole  inhabited  p.irt  of  the  earth  is  taken  into  consideration. 

(3)  The  third  class  of  evils  comprises  those  which  every  one  causes  to  him- 
self by  his  own  action.  This  is  the  largest  class,  and  is  far  more  numerous 
than  the  second  class.  It  is  especially  of  these  evils  that  all  men  complain, — 
only  few  men  are  found  that  do  not  sin  against  themselves  by  this  kind  of 
evil.  Those  that  are  afflicted  with  it  are  therefore  justly  blamed  in  the 
words  of  the  prophet,  "  This  hath  been  by  your  means  "  (Mai.  i.  9)  ;  the 
same  is  expressed  in  the  following  passage,  "  lie  that  doeth  it  destroycth  his 
own  soul  "  (Prov.  vi.  32).  In  reference  to  this  kind  of  evil,  Solomon  sap, 
"  The  foolishness  of  man  perverteth  his  way  "  {ibid.  xix.  3).  In  the  follow- 
ing passage  he  explains  also  that  this  kind  of  evil  is  man's  own  work,  "  I,o, 
this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  hath  made  man  upright,  but  they  have 
thought  out  many  inventions  "  (Eccles.  vii.  29),  and  these  inventions  bring  the 


270  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

evils  upon  him.     The  same  subject  is  referred  to  in  Job  (v.  6),  "  For  affliction 
Cometh  not  forth  of  the  dust,  neither  doth  trouble  spring  out  of  the  ground." 
These  words  are  immediately  followed  by  the  explanation  that  man  himself 
is  the  author  of  this  class  of  evils,  "  But  man  is  born  unto  trouble."     This 
class  of  evils  originates  in  man's  vices,  such  as  excessive  desire  for  eating, 
drinking,  and  love ;    indulgence  in  these  things  in  undue    measure,  or  in 
improper  manner,  or  partaking  of  bad  food.     This  course  brings  diseases  and 
afflictions  upon  body  and  soul  alike.     The  sufferings  of  the  body  in  conse- 
quence of  these  evils  are  well  known  ;   those  of  the  soul  are  twofold  : — First, 
such  evils  of  the  soul  as  are  the  necessary  consequence  of  changes  in  the  body, 
in  so  far  as  the  soul  is  a  force  residing  in  the  body  ;  it  has  therefore  been  said 
that  the  properties  of  the  soul  depend  on  the  condition  of  the  body.     Secondly, 
the   soul,    when   accustomed    to     superfluous    things,    acquires   a    strong 
habit  of  desiring  things  which  are  neither  necessary  for  the  preservation  of 
the  individual  nor  for  that  of  the  species.     This  desire  is  without  a  limit, 
whilst  things  which  are  necessary  are  few  in  number  and  restricted  within 
certain  limits ;    but  what  is  superfluous  is  without  end — e.g.,  you  desire  to 
have  your  vessels  of  silver,  but  golden  vessels  are  still  better  :    others  have 
even  vessels  of  sapphire,  or  perhaps  they  can  be  made  of  emerald  or  rubies, 
or  any  other  substance  that  could  be  suggested.     Those  who  are  ignorant 
and  perverse  in  their  thought  are  constantly  in  trouble  and  pain,  because 
they  cannot  get  as  much  of  superfluous  things  as  a  certain  other  person 
possesses.     They  as  a  rule  expose  themselves  to  great  dangers,  e.g.,  by  sea- 
voyage,  or  service  of  kings,  and  all  this  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  that  which 
is  superfluous  and  not  necessary.     When  they  thus  meet  with  the  conse- 
quences of  the  course  which  they  adopt,  they  complain  of  the  decrees  and 
judgments  of  God  ;   they  begin  to  blame  the  time,  and  wonder  at  the  want 
of  justice  in  its  changes ;    that  it  has  not  enabled  them  to  acquire  great 
riches,  with  which  they  could  buy  large  quantities  of  wine  for  the  purpose 
of  making  themselves  drunk,  and  numerous  concubines  adorned  with  various 
kind  of  ornaments  of  gold,  embroidery,  and  jewels,  for  the  purpose  of  driving 
themselves  to  voluptuousness  beyond  their  capacities,  as  if  the  whole  Universe 
existed  exclusively  for  the  purpose  of  giving  pleasure  to  these  low  people. 
The  error  of  the  ignorant  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  God's  power  is  insuffi- 
cient, because  He  has  given  to  this  Universe  the  properties  which  they  ima- 
gine cause  these  great  evils,  and  which  do  not  help  all  evil-disposed  persons 
to  obtain  the  evil  which  they  seek,  and  to  bring  their  evil  souls  to  the  aim  of 
their  desires,  though  these,  as  we  have  shown,  are  really    without    limit. 
The  virtuous  and  wise,  however,  see  and  comprehend  the  wisdom  of  God 
displayed  in  the  Universe.     Thus  David  says,  "  All  the  paths  of  the  Lord 
are  mercy  and  truth  unto  such  as  keep  His  covenant  and  His  testimonies  " 
(Ps.  XXV.  lo).     For  those  who  observe  the  nature  of  the  Universe  and  the 
commandments  of  the  Law,  and  know  their  purpose,  see  clearly  God's  mercy 
and  truth  in  everything ;    they  seek,  therefore,  that  which  the  Creator  in- 
tended to  be  the  aim  of  man,  viz.,  comprehension.     Forced  by  the  claims  of 
the  body,  they  seek  also  that  which  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the 
body,  "  bread  to  eat  and  garment  to  clothe,"  and  this  is  very  little  ;  but  they 
seek  nothing  superfluous ;  with  very  slight  exertion  man  can  obtain  it,  so 
long  as  he  is  contented  vnih  that  which  is  indispensable.     All  the  difficulties 


ON  THE  EVILS  271 

and  troubles  we  meet  in  this  respect  arc  due  to  the  desire  for  suprrfluoui 
things ;  when  we  seek  unnecessary  things,  we  have  difficulty  even  in  finding 
that  which  is  indispensable.  For  the  more  we  desire  to  have  that  which  is 
superfluous,  the  more  we  meet  with  difficulties ;  our  strength  and  possessions 
are  spent  in  unnecessary  things,  and  are  wanting  when  required  for  that  which 
is  necessary.  Observe  how  Nature  proves  the  correctness  of  this  assertion. 
The  more  necessary  a  thing  is  for  living  beings,  the  more  easily  it  is  found  and 
the  cheaper  it  is ;  the  less  necessary  it  is,  the  rarer  and  dearer  it  is.  E.g., 
air,  water,  and  food  are  indispensable  to  man  :  air  is  most  necessary,  for  if 
man  is  without  air  a  short  time  he  dies ;  whilst  he  can  be  without  water 
a  day  or  two.  Air  is  also  undoubtedly  found  more  easily  and  cheaper 
[than  water].  Water  is  more  necessary  than  food  ;  for  some  people  can  be 
four  or  five  days  without  food,  provided  they  have  water ;  water  also 
exists  in  every  country  in  larger  quantities  than  food,  and  is  also  cheaper. 
The  same  proportion  can  be  noticed  in  the  ditTercnt  kinds  of  food;  that 
which  is  more  necessary  in  a  certain  place  exists  there  in  larger  qunntitics 
and  is  cheaper  than  that  which  is  less  necessary.  No  intelligent  person,  I  think, 
considers  musk,  amber,  rubies,  and  emerald  as  very  necessary  for  man  except  as 
medicines ;  and  they,  as  well  as  other  like  substances,  can  be  replaced  for  this 
purpose  by  herbs  and  minerals.  This  shows  the  kindness  of  God  to  His 
creatures,  even  to  us  weak  beings.  His  righteousness  and  justice  as  regards 
all  animals  are  well  known  ;  for  in  the  transient  world  there  is  among  the 
various  kinds  of  animals  no  individual  being  distinguished  from  the  rest  of 
the  same  species  by  a  peculiar  property  or  an  additional  limb.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  physical,  psychical,  and  vital  forces  and  organs  that  arc  possessed 
by  one  individual  are  found  also  in  the  other  individuals.  If  any  one  is  some- 
how different  it  is  by  accident,  in  consequence  of  some  exception,  and  not 
by  a  natural  property ;  it  is  also  a  rare  occurrence.  There  is  no  difference 
between  individuals  of  a  species  in  the  due  course  of  Nature  ;  the  difference 
originates  in  the  various  dispositions  of  their  substances.  This  is  the  neces- 
sary consequence  of  the  nature  of  the  substance  of  that  species ;  the  nature 
of  the  species  is  not  more  favourable  to  one  individual  than  to  the  other. 
It  is  no  wrong  or  injustice  that  one  has  many  bags  of  finest  myrrh  and  gar- 
ments embroidered  with  gold,  while  another  has  not  those  things,  which  arc 
not  necessary  for  our  maintenance ;  he  who  has  them  has  not  thereby  ob- 
tained control  over  anything  that  could  be  an  essential  addition  to  his  nature, 
but  has  only  obtained  something  illusory  or  deceptive.  The  other,  who 
does  not  possess  that  which  is  not  wanted  for  his  maintenance,  docs  not  miss 
anything  indispensable  :  "  He  that  gathered  much  had  nothing  over,  and 
he  that  gathered  little  had  no  lack  :  they  gathered  every  man  according  to 
his  eating  "  (Exod.  xvi.  18).  This  is  the  rule  at  all  times  and  in  all  places  ; 
no  notice  should  be  taken  of  exceptional  cases,  as  we  have  explained. 

In  these  two  ways  you  will  see  the  mercy  of  God  toward  His  creatures. 
how  He  has  provided  that  which  is  required,  in  proper  proportions,  and 
treated  all  individual  beings  of  the  same  species  with  perfect  cquality.^^  In 
accordance  with  this  correct  reflection  the  chief  of  the  wise  men  savs,  "  All 
his  ways  are  judgment  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  4)  ;  David  likewise  says :  "  All  the 
paths  of  the  Lord  are  mercy  and  truth  "  (Ps.  xxv.  10)  ;  he  also  says  cxprcssl)-, 
"  The  Lord  is  good  to  all ;   and   his  tender  mercies  are  over  all  h>s  works  ** 


272  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

(ibid.  cxlv.  9)  ;  for  it  is  an  act  of  great  and  perfect  goodness  that  He  gave  us 
existence ;  and  the  creation  of  the  controlling  faculty  in  animals  is  a  proof 
of  His  mercy  towards  them,  as  has  been  shown  by  us. 

CHAPTER  Xni 

Intelligent  persons  are  much  perplexed  when  they  inquire  into  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Creation.  I  will  now  show  how  absurd  this  question  is,  according 
to  each  one  of  the  different  theories  [above-mentioned].  An  agent  that  acts 
with  intention  must  have  a  certain  ulterior  object  in  that  which  he  performs. 
This  is  evident,  and  no  philosophical  proof  is  required.  It  is  likewise  evident 
that  that  which  is  produced  with  intention  has  passed  over  from  non-existence 
to  existence.  It  is  further  evident,  and  generally  agreed  upon,  that  the 
being  which  has  absolute  existence,  which  has  never  been  and  will  never  be 
without  existence,  is  not  in  need  of  an  agent.  We  have  explained  this  be- 
fore. The  question,  "  What  is  the  purpose  thereof  ?  "  cannot  be  asked 
about  anything  which  is  not  the  product  of  an  agent ;  therefore  we  cannot 
ask  what  is  the  purpose  of  the  existence  of  God.  He  has  not  been  created. 
According  to  these  propositions  it  is  clear  that  the  purpose  is  sought  for 
everything  produced  intentionally  by  an  intelligent  cause  ;  that  is  to  say,  a 
final  cause  must  exist  for  everything  that  owes  its  existence  to  an  intelligent 
being  :  but  for  that  which  is  without  a  beginning,  a  final  cause  need  not  be 
sought,  as  has  been  stated  by  us.  After  this  explanation  you  will  understand 
that  there  is  no  occasion  to  seek  the  final  cause  of  the  whole  Universe,  neither 
according  to  our  theory  of  the  Creation,  nor  according  to  the  theory  of 
Aristotle,  who  assumes  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe.  For  according  to  Aris- 
totle, who  holds  that  the  Universe  has  not  had  a  beginning,  an  ultimate  final 
cause  cannot  be  sought  even  for  the  various  parts  of  the  Universe.  Thus  it 
cannot  be  asked,  according  to  his  opinion,  What  is  the  final  cause  of  the 
existence  of  the  heavens  ?  Why  are  they  limited  by  this  measure  or  by  that 
number  ?  Why  is  matter  of  this  description  ?  What  is  the  purpose  of  the 
existence  of  this  species  of  animals  or  plants  ?  Aristotle  considers  all  this 
as  the  result  of  a  permanent  order  of  things.  Natural  Philosophy  investigates 
into  the  object  of  everything  in  Nature,  but  it  does  not  treat  of  the  ultimate 
final  cause,  of  which  we  speak  in  this  chapter.  It  is  a  recognized  fact  in 
Natural  Philosophy  that  everything  in  Nature  has  its  object,  or  its  final  cause, 
which  is  the  most  important  of  the  four  causes,  though  it  is  not  easily  recog- 
nized in  most  species.  Aristotle  repeatedly  says  that  Nature  produces 
nothing  in  vain,  for  every  natural  action  has  a  certain  object.  Thus,  Aris- 
totle says  that  plants  exist  for  animals ;  and  similarly  he  shows  of  other  parts 
of  the  Universe  for  what  purpose  they  exist.  This  is  stiU  more  obvious  in 
the  case  of  the  organs  of  animals.  The  existence  of  such  a  final  cause  in  the 
various  parts  of  Nature  has  compelled  philosophers  to  assume  the  existence 
of  a  primal  cause  apart  from  Nature  ;  it  is  called  by  Aristotle  the  intellectual 
or  divine  cause,  and  this  cause  creates  one  thing  for  the  purpose  of  another. 
Those  who  acknowledge  the  truth  will  accept  as  the  best  proof  for  the  Cre- 
ation the  fact  that  everything  in  Nature  serves  a  certain  purpose,  so  that  one 
thing  exists  for  the  benefit  of  another ;  this  fact  is  supported  by  numerous 
instances,  and  shows  that  there  is  design  in  Nature  ;    but  the  existence  of 


THE  PVRPOSli  OF  fill-  CREATION  273 

design  in  Nature  cannot  be  imagined  unless  it  be  assumed  that  Nature  hat 
been  produced. 

I  will  now  return  to  tlie  subject  of  this  chapter,  viz.,  the  final  cause. 
Aristotle  has  already  explained  that  in  Nature  the  efficient  cause  of  a  thin^j, 
its  form,  and  its  final  cause  are  identical ;  that  is  to  say,  they  arc  one  tiling  in 
relation  to  the  whole  species.     E.g.,  the  form  of  Zcid  produces  the  form  of 
his  son  Amr  ;   its  action  consists  in  imparting  the  form  of  the  whole  species 
[of  man]  to  the  substance  of  Amr,  and  the  final  cause  is  Amr's  possession  of 
human  form.     The  same  argument  is  applied  by  Aristotle  to  every  indi- 
vidual member  of  a  class  of  natural  objects  which  is  brought  to  existence  by 
another  individual  member.     The  three  causes  coincide  in  all  such  cases. 
All  this  refers  only  to  the  immediate  purpose  of  a  thing ;   but  the  existence 
of  an  ultimate  purpose  in  every  species,  which  is  considered  as  absolutely 
necessary  by  every  one  who  investigates  into  the  nature  of  things,  is  very 
difficult  to  discover :   and  still  more  difficult  is  it  to  find  the  purpose  of  the 
whole  Universe.     I  infer  from  the  words  of  Aristotle  that  according  to  his 
opinion  the  ultimate  purpose  of  the  genera  is  the  preservation  of  the  course 
of  genesis  and  destruction  ;    and  this  course  is  absolutely  necessary  [in  the 
first  instance]  for  the  successive  formation  of  material  objects,  because  indi- 
vidual beings  formed  of  matter  are  not  permanent ;  [secondly],  for  the  pro- 
duction of  the  best  and  the  most  perfect  beings  that  can  be  formed  of  matter, 
because  the  ultimate  purpose  [in  these  productions]  is  to  arrive  at  perfection. 
Now  it  is  clear  that  man  is  the  most  perfect  being  formed  of  matter  ;   he  is 
the  last  and  most  perfect  of  earthly  beings,  and  in  this  respect  it  can  truly 
be  said  that  all  earthly  things  exist  for  man,  i.e.,  that  the  changes  which  things 
undergo  serve  to  produce  the  most  perfect  being  that  can  be  produced. 
Aristotle,  who  assumes  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  need  therefore  not  ask 
to  what  purpose  does  man  exist,  for  the  immediate  purpose  of  each  individual 
being  is,  according  to  his  opinion,  the  perfection  of  its  specific  form.     Every 
individual  thing  arrives  at  its  perfection  fully  and  completely  when  the  actions 
that  produce  its  form  are  complete.      The  ultimate  purpose  of  the  species  is 
the  perpetuation  of  this  form  by  the  repeated  succession  of  genesis  and  de- 
struction, so  that  there  might  always  be  a  being  capable   of   the   greatest 
possible  perfection.     It  seems  therefore  clear  that,  accordmg  to  Aristotle, 
who  assumes  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  ques- 
tion what  is  the  object  of  the  existence  of  the  Universe.     But  of  those  who 
accept  our  theory  that  the  whole  Universe  has  been  created  from  nothing, 
some  hold  that  the  inquiry  after  the  purpose  of  the  Creation  is  necessary, 
and  assume  that  the  Universe  was  only  created  for  the  sake  of  man  s  existence, 
that  he  might  serve  God.     Everything  that  is  done  they  believe  is  done  for 
man's  sake  ;   even  the  spheres  move  only  for  his  benefit,  in  order  that  his 
wants  might  be  supplied.     The  hteral  meaning  of  some  passages  in  the  books 
of  the  prophets  greatly  support  this  idea.     Comp.  "  He  formed  it  (v.z.thc 
earth)  to  be  inhabited  »  (Isa.  xlv.  18) ;    "  If  my  covenant  of  day  and  night 
were  not,"  etc.  Her.  xxxiii.  25) ;  "And  spreadeth  them  out  as  a  tent  to  dwell  in 
(Isa  xl  22)      If  the  sphere  existed  for  the  sake  of  man,  how  much  more  must 
this" be  the  case  with  aU  other  Uving  beings  and  the  phints.     On  examining 
this  opinion  as  intelligent  persons  ought  to  examine  a  1  different  opmions, 
we  shaU  discover  the  errors  it  includes.     Those  who  hold  this  view,  namely, 


274  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

that  the  existence  of  man  is  the  object  of  the  whole  creation,  may  be  asked 
whether  God  could  have  created  man  without  those  previous  creations,  or 
whether  man  could  only  have  come  into  existence  after  the  creation  of  all 
other  things.  If  they  answer  in  the  affirmative,  that  man  could  have  been 
created  even  if,  e.g.,  the  heavens  did  not  exist,  they  will  be  asked  what  is  the 
object  of  all  these  things,  since  they  do  not  exist  for  their  own  sake  but  for 
the  sake  of  something  that  could  exist  without  them  ?  Even  if  the  Universe 
existed  for  man's  sake  and  man  existed  for  the  purpose  of  serving  God,  as  has 
been  mentioned,  the  question  remains,  What  is  the  end  of  serving  God  ? 
He  does  not  become  more  perfect  if  all  His  creatures  serve  Him  and  com- 
prehend Him  as  far  as  possible  ;  nor  would  He  lose  anything  if  nothing  ex- 
isted beside  Him.  It  might  perhaps  be  replied  that  the  service  of  God  is  not 
intended  for  God's  perfection ;  it  is  intended  for  our  own  perfection, — it 
is  good  for  us,  it  makes  us  perfect.  But  then  the  question  might  be  repeated. 
What  is  the  object  of  our  being  perfect  ?  We  must  in  continuing  the  in- 
quiry as  to  the  purpose  of  the  creation  at  last  arrive  at  the  answer.  It 
was  the  Will  of  God,  or  His  Wisdom  decreed  it ;  and  this  is  the  correct 
answer.  The  wise  men  in  Israel  have,  therefore,  introduced  in  our 
prayers  (for  Ncilah  of  the  Day  of  Atonement)  the  following  passage  : — 
"  Thou  hast  distinguished  man  from  the  beginning,  and  chosen  him 
to  stand  before  Thee ;  who  can  say  unto  Thee,  What  dost  Thou  ? 
And  if  he  be  righteous,  what  does  he  give  Thee  ?  "  They  have  thus  clearly 
stated  that  it  was  not  a  final  cause  that  determined  the  existence  of  all  things, 
but  only  His  will.  This  being  the  case,  we  who  believe  in  the  Creation  must 
admit  that  God  could  have  created  the  Universe  in  a  different  manner  as 
regards  the  causes  and  effects  contained  in  it,  and  this  would  lead  to  the 
absurd  conclusion  that  everything  except  man  existed  without  any  purpose, 
as  the  principal  object,  man,  could  have  been  brought  into  existence  without 
the  rest  of  the  creation.  I  consider  therefore  the  following  opinion  as  most 
correct  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  and  best  in  accordance  with 
the  results  of  philosophy  ;  namely,  that  the  Universe  does  not  exist  for  man's 
sake,  but  that  each  being  exists  for  its  ovm  sake,  and  not  because  of  some 
other  thing.  Thus  we  believe  in  the  Creation,  and  yet  need  not  inquire 
what  purpose  is  served  by  each  species  of  the  existing  things,  because  we 
assume  that  God  created  all  parts  of  the  Universe  by  His  will ;  some  for  their 
own  sake,  and  some  for  the  sake  of  other  beings,  that  include  their  own  pur- 
pose in  themselves.  In  the  same  manner  as  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  man 
should  exist,  so  it  was  His  will  that  the  heavens  with  their  stars  should  exist, 
that  there  should  be  angels,  and  each  of  these  beings  is  itself  the  purpose  of  its 
own  existence.  When  anything  can  only  exist  provided  some  other  thing 
has  previously  existed,  God  has  caused  the  latter  to  precede  it ;  as,  e.g., 
sensation  precedes  comprehension.  We  meet  also  with  this  view  in  Scrip- 
ture :  "  The  Lord  hath  made  everything  (la-ma'anehu)  for  its  pur- 
pose"  (Prov.  xvi.  4).  It  is  possible! that  the  pronoun  in  la-maanehu  refers 
to  the  object ;  but  it  can  also  be  considered  as  agreeing  with  the  subject ; 
in  which  case  the  meaning  of  the  word  is,  for  the  sake  of  Himself,  or  His  will 
which  is  identical  with  His  self  [or  essence],  as  has  been  shown  in  this  treatise. 
We  have  also  pointed  out  that  His  essence  is  also  called  His  glory.  The 
words,  "  The  Lord  hath  made  everything  for  Himself,"  express  therefore  the 


THE  PURPOSE  OE  THE  CREATION  275 

same  idea  as  the  following  verse,  "  Everything  that  is  called  by  my  name  :  I 
have  created  it  for  my  glory,  I  have  f(jrmed  it ;  yea,  I  have  made  ii  "  (Isa. 
xliii.  7)  ;  that  is  to  say,  everything  that  is  described  as  My  work  has  hrm 
made  by  Me  for  the  sake  of  My  will  and  for  no  other  purpose.  The  we:  1  , 
"  I  have  formed  it,"  "  I  have  made  it,"  express  exactly  what  I  pointed  out 
to  you,  that  there  are  things  whose  existence  is  only  possible  after  certain 
other  things  have  come  into  existence.  To  these  reference  is  made  in  the 
text,  as  if  to  say,  I  have  formed  the  first  thing  which  must  have  preceded  the 
other  things,  e.g.,  matter  has  been  formed  before  the  production  of  material 
beings  ;  I  have  then  made  out  of  that  previous  creation,  or  after  it,  what  I 
intended  to  produce,  and  there  was  nothing  but  My  will.  Study  the  book 
which  leads  all  who  want  to  be  led  to  the  truth,  and  is  therefore  called  Torah 
(Law  or  Instruction),  from  the  beginning  of  the  account  of  the  Creation  to 
its  end,  and  you  will  comprehend  the  opinion  which  we  attempt  to  expound. 
For  no  part  of  the  creation  is  described  as  being  in  existence  for  the  sake  of 
another  part,  but  each  part  is  declared  to  be  the  product  of  God's  will,  and 
to  satisfy  by  its  existence  the  intention  [of  the  Creator].  This  is  cxpre^'ic-J 
by  the  phrase,  "  And  God  saw  that  it  was  good  "  (Gen.  i.  4,  etc.).  Wm 
know  our  interpretation  of  the  saying  of  our  Sages,  "  Scripture  speaks  the 
same  language  as  is  spoken  by  man."  But  we  call  "  good  "  that  which  is  in 
accordance  with  the  object  we  seek.  When  therefore  Scripture  relates  in 
reference  to  the  whole  creation  (Gen.  i.  31),  "  And  God  saw  all  that  He  had 
made,  and  behold  it  was  exceedingly  good,"  it  declares  thereby  that  every- 
thing created  was  well  fitted  for  its  object,  and  would  never  cease  to  act,  and 
never  be  annihilated.  This  is  especially  pointed  out  by  the  word  "exceed- 
ingly" ;  for  sometimes  a  thing  is  temporarily  good  ;  it  serves  its  purp>osc, 
and  then  it  fails  and  ceases  to  act.  But  as  regards  the  Creation  it  is  said  that 
everything  was  fit  for  its  purpose,  and  able  continually  to  act  accordingly. 
You  must  not  be  misled  by  what  is  stated  of  the  stars  [that  God  put  them  in 
the  firmament  of  the  heavens]  to  give  light  upon  the  earth,  and  to  rule  by 
day  and  by  night.  You  might  perhaps  think  that  here  the  purpose  of  their 
creation  is  described.  This  is  not  the  case  ;  we  are  only  informed  of  the 
nature  of  the  stars,  which  God  desired  to  create  with  such  properties  that 
they  should  be  able  to  give  light  and  to  rule.  In  a  similar  manner  we  must 
understand  the  passage,  "  And  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea  "  (i/'i./. 
i.  28).  Here  it  is  not  meant  to  say  that  man  was  created  for  this  purpose, 
but  only  that  this  was  the  nature  which  God  gave  man.  But  as  to  the 
statement  in  Scripture  that  God  gave  the  plants  to  man  and  other  living 
beings,  it  agrees  with  the  opinion  of  Aristotle  and  other  philosophers.  It  is 
also  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  plants  exist  only  for  the  benefit  of  the 
animals,  since  the  latter  cannot  live  without  food.  It  is  different  with  the 
stars,  they  do  not  exist  only  for  our  sake,  that  we  should  enjoy  their  good 
influence ;  for  the  expressions  "  to  give  light  "  and  "  to  rule  "  merely  de- 
scribe, as  we  have  stated  above,  the  benefit  which  the  creatures  on  earth 
derive  from  them.  I  have  already  explained  to  you  the  character  of  that 
influence  that  causes  continually  the  good  to  descend  from  one  being  to  an- 
other. To  those  who  receive  the  good  flowing  down  upon  them,  it  m.iy 
appear  as  if  the  being  existed  for  them  alone  that  sends  forth  its  goodness 
and  kindness  unto  them.     Thus  some  citizen  may  imagine  that  it  was  for 


276  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  purpose  of  protecting  his  house  by  night  from  thieves  that  the  king  was 
chosen.  To  some  extent  tliis  is  correct ;  for  when  his  house  is  protected,  and 
he  has  derived  this  benefit  through  the  king  whom  the  country  had  chosen, 
it  appears  as  if  it  were  the  object  of  the  king  to  protect  the  house  of  that 
man.  In  this  manner  we  must  explain  every  verse,  the  literal  meaning  of 
which  would  imply  that  something  superior  was  created  for  the  sake  of  some- 
thing inferior,  viz.,  that  it  is  part  of  the  nature  of  the  superior  thing  [to 
influence  the  inferior  in  a  certain  manner].  We  remain  firm  in  our  belief 
that  the  whole  Universe  was  created  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  and 
we  do  not  inquire  for  any  other  cause  or  object.  Just  as  we  do  not  ask  what 
is  the  purpose  of  God's  existence,  so  we  do  not  ask  what  was  the  object  of 
His  will,  which  is  the  cause  of  the  existence  of  all  things  with  their  present 
properties,  both  those  that  have  been  created  and  those  that  will  be  created. 
You  must  not  be  mistaken  and  think  that  the  spheres  and  the  angels  were 
created  for  our  sake.  Our  position  has  already  been  pointed  out  to  us, 
"  Behold,  the  nations  are  as  a  drop  of  a  bucket  "  (Isa.  xl.  15).  Now  compare 
your  own  essence  with  that  of  the  spheres,  the  stars,  and  the  Intelligences, 
and  you  will  comprehend  the  truth,  and  understand  that  man  is  superior  to 
everything  formed  of  earthly  matter,  but  not  to  other  beings ;  he  is  found 
exceedingly  inferior  when  his  existence  is  compared  with  that  of  the  spheres, 
and  a  fortiori  when  compared  with  that  of  the  Intelligences.  Comp.  "  Be- 
hold, he  putteth  no  trust  in  his  servants :  and  his  messengers  he  charged  with 
foUy  :  how  much  less  in  them  that  dwell  in  houses  of  clay,  whose  foundation 
is  in  the  dust,  which  are  crushed  before  the  moth  ?  "  (Job  iv.  18,  19).  The 
expression  "  his  servants,"  occurring  in  this  passage,  does  not  denote  human 
beings  ;  this  may  be  inferred  from  the  words,  "  How  much  less  in  them  that 
dwell  in  houses  of  clay  ?  "  The  "  servants  "  referred  to  in  this  place  are 
the  angels ;  whilst  by  the  term  "  his  messengers  "  the  spheres  are  un- 
doubtedly meant.  Eliphas  himself,  who  uttered  the  above  words,  explains 
this  [in  the  second  speech]  when  he  refers  to  it  in  one  of  his  replies  in  other 
words,  saying,  "  Behold,  he  putteth  no  trust  in  his  [holy  ones ;  yea,  the 
heavens  are  not  clean  in  his  sight,  how  much  more  abominable  and  filthy  is 
man,  who  drinketh  iniquity  like  water"  {ibid.  xv.  15,  16).  He  thus  shows 
that  "  his  servants  "  and  "  his  holy  ones  "  are  identical,  and  that  they  are 
not  human  beings ;  also  that  "  his  messengers,"  mentioned  in  the  first 
passage,  are  the  same  as  "  the  heavens."  The  term  "  folly  "  is  explained  by 
the  phrase  "  they  are  not  clean  in  his  sight,"  i.e.,  they  are  material ;  al- 
though their  substance  is  the  purest  and  the  most  luminous,  compared  with 
the  Intelligences  it  appears  dark,  turbid,  and  impure.  The  phrase,  "  Be- 
hold, he  putteth  no  trust  in  his  servants,"  is  employed  in  reference  to  the 
angels,  indicating  that  these  do  not  possess  perpetual  existence,  since,  as  we 
believe,  they  have  had  a  beginning  ;  and  even  according  to  those  who  assume 
the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  the  existence  of  the  angels  is  at  all  events  depen- 
dent on  and  therefore  inferior  to,  the  absolute  existence  of  God.  The  words, 
"  How  much  more  abominable  and  filthy  is  man,"  in  the  one  passage,  corres- 
pond to  the  phrase  "  How  much  less  in  those  who  dwell  in  houses  of  clay  "  in 
the  other  passage.  Their  meaning  is  this :  How  much  less  in  man  who  is 
abominable  and  filthy,  in  whose  person  crookedness  or  corporeality  is  mixed 
up  and  spread  through  all  his  parts.     "  Iniquity  "  (_'avlah)  is  identical  with 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  CREATION  277 

"  crookedness,"  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  passage,  "  In  tlie  land  of  up- 
rightness he  will  act  with  iniquity  "  (Isa.  xxvi.  10),  and  ish,  "  man,"  is  here 
used  in  the  same  sense  as  adam,  "  human  being  "  ;  for  "  man  "  in  a  gencrjl 
sense  is  sometimes  expressed  in  Scripture  by  isb.  Comp.  "  1  fe  who  smitcth 
a  man  {ish)  and  he  die  "  (Exod.  xxi.  12). 

This  must  be  our  belief  when  we  have  a  correct  knowledge  of  our  own  self, 
and  comprehend  the  true  nature  of  everything  ;  we  must  be  content,  and 
not  trouble  our  mind  with  seeking  a  certain  final  cause  for  things  that  have 
none,  or  have  no  other  final  cause  but  their  own  existence,  which  depends 
on  the  Will  of  God,  or,  if  you  prefer,  on  the  Divine  Wisdom. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

In  order  to  obtain  a  correct  estimate  of  ourselves,  we  must  reflect  on  the 
results  of  the  investigations  which  have   been  made  into  the   dimensions  and 
the  distances  of  the  spheres  and  the  stars.     The  distances  are  clearly  stated 
in  radii  of  the  earth,  and  are  well  known,  since  the  circumference  and  the 
radius  of  the  earth  are  known.     It  has  been  proved  that  the  distance  between 
the  centre  of  the  earth  and  the  outer  surface  of  the  sphere  of  Saturn  is  a 
journey  of  nearly  eight  thousand  seven  hundred  solar  years.     Suppose  a 
day's  journey  to  be  forty  legal  miles  of  two  thousand  ordinary  cubits,  and 
consider  the  great  and  enormous  distance  !  or  in  the  words  of  Scripture, 
"  Is  not  God  in  the  height  of  heaven  ^.  and  behold  the  height  of  the  stars, 
how  high  they  are  !  "  (Job  xxii.  12)  ;   that  is  to  say,  learn  from  the  height  of 
the  heavens  how  far  we  are  from  comprehending  God,  for  there  is  an  enor- 
mous distance  between  ourselves  and  these  corporeal  objects,  and  the  latter 
are  greatly  distinguished  from  us  by  their  position,  and  hidden   from    us  as 
regards  their  essence  and  most  of  their  actions.     How  much  more  incom- 
prehensible therefore  is  their  Maker,  who  is  incorporeal !     The  great  dis- 
tance which  has  been  proved  is,  in  fact,  the  least  that  can  be  assumed.     The 
distance  between  the  centre  of  the  earth  and  the  surface  of  the  sphere  of  the 
fixed  stars  can  by  no  means  be  less,  but  it  may  possibly  be  many  times  as 
great ;    for  the  measure  of  the  thickness  of  the  body  of  the  spheres  has  not 
been  proved,  and  the  least  possible  has  been  assumed,  as  appears  from  the 
treatises  On  the  Distances.     The  same  is  the  case  with  the  substances  which 
are  between  every  two  spheres.     According  to  logical  inference,  as  has  been 
mentioned  by  Thabit,  the  thickness  of  these  substances  cannot  be  accurately 
stated,  since  they  do  not  contain  any  star,  which  might  serve  as  a  means  of 
obtaining  it.     As  to  the  thickness  of  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars,  it  is  at  least 
four  years'  journey,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  measure  of  the  stars  con- 
tained in  the  sphere.     The  body  of  each  of  these  stars  is  more  than  nmcty 
times  as  big  as  the  globe  of  the  earth,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  thickness  of 
the  sphere  is  still  greater.     Of  the  ninth  sphere,  that  causes  the  daily  revolu- 
tion of  the  whole  system  of  spheres,  we  do  not  know  the  dimensions  ;    it 
contains  no  stars,  and  therefore  we  have  no  means  of  finding  out  its  m..L-  : 
tude      Now  consider  the  enormous  dimensions  and  the  large  number  of  tla  c 
material  beings.     If  the  whole  earth  is  infinitely  small  in  comparison  wnh 
the  sphere  of  the  stars,  what  is  man  compared  with  all  these  created  beings  ! 
How,  tlien,  could  any  one  of  us  imagine  that  these  things  cust  for  his  sake 


278  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

and  benefit,  and  that  they  are  his  tools  !  This  is  the  result  of  an  examination 
of  the  corporeal  beings :  how  much  more  so  will  this  be  the  result  of  an 
examination  into  the  nature  of  the  Intelligences ! 

The  following  question  may  be  asked  against  the  opinion  of  philosophers 
on  this  subject :  There  is  no  doubt  that  from  a  philosophical  point  of  view 
it  would  be  a  mistake  to  assume  that  the  spheres  exist  for  the  purpose  of 
regulating  the  fate  of  one  individual  person  or  community ;  but  it  is  not 
absurd  to  think  that  they  serve  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  mankind,  since  these 
mighty  individual  beings  would  serve  to  give  existence  to  the  individual 
members  of  the  species,  the  number  of  which,  according  to  the  philosophers, 
will  never  come  to  an  end.  We  can  best  illustrate  this  by  the  following 
simile  :  An  artisan  makes  iron  tools  of  a  hundred-weight  for  the  purpose  of 
making  a  small  needle  of  the  weight  of  a  grain.  If  only  one  needle  had  to  be 
produced,  we  admit  that  it  would  certainly  be  bad  management,  though  it 
would  not  be  entirely  a  failure  ;  but  if  vnih  those  enormous  tools  needle 
after  needle  is  produced,  even  many  hundred-weights  of  needles,  the  pre- 
paration of  those  tools  would  be  a  wise  act  and  excellent  management.  In 
a  similar  manner  the  object  of  the  spheres  may  be  the  continuance  of  succes- 
sive genesis  and  destruction ;  and  the  succession  of  genesis  and  destruction 
serves,  as  has  already  been  said,  to  give  existence  to  mankind.  This  idea  is 
supported  by  Biblical  texts  and  sayings  [of  our  Sages].  The  philosopher 
replies  thus :  If  the  difference  between  the  heavenly  bodies  and  the  tran- 
sient individual  members  of  the  species  consisted  in  their  different  sizes, 
this  opinion  could  be  maintained  ;  but  as  the  difference  consists  in  their 
essence,  it  remains  improbable  that  the  superior  beings  should  be  the  means 
of  giving  existence  to  the  lower  ones.  In  short,  this  question  supports  our 
belief  in  the  Creation  ;  and  this  is  the  principal  object  of  this  chapter.  [It 
serves]  besides  [a  second  purpose].  I  frequently  hear  froiii  those  who  know 
something  about  astronomy,  that  our  Sages  exaggerated  the  distances  [of 
the  heavenly  bodies]  when  they  said  that  the  thickness  of  each  sphere  is  five 
hundred  years'  journey ;  the  distance  of  the  seven  spheres  from  each  other 
five  hundred  years'  journey,  so  that  the  distance  of  the  outer  surface  of  the 
seventh  sphere  from  the  centre  of  the  earth  is  seven  thousand  years'  journey. 
Those  who  hear  such  statements  consider  them  [at  first  thought]  as  exagger- 
ation, and  believe  that  the  distance  is  not  so  great.  But  you  may  ascertain 
from  the  data  proved  in  scientific  treatises  on  the  distances,  that  the  centre 
of  the  earth  is  distant  from  the  inner  surface  of  the  seventh  sphere,  that  of 
Saturn,  nearly  seven  thousand  and  twenty-four  years'  journey.  The  number 
eight  thousand  and  seven  hundred  given  by  us,  refers  to  the  distance  of  the 
centre  of  the  earth  from  the  inner  surface  of  the  eighth  sphere.  The  dis- 
tance of  the  spheres  from  each  other,  mentioned  by  astronomers,  is  identical 
with  the  thickness  of  the  substance  that  intervenes  between  one  sphere  and 
the  other,  and  does  not  imply  that  there  is  a  vacuum.  You  must,  however, 
not  expect  that  everything  our  Sages  say  respecting  astronomical  matters 
should  agree  with  observation,  for  mathematics  were  not  fully  developed  in 
those  days ;  and  their  statements  were  not  based  on  the  authority  of  the 
Prophets,  but  on  the  knowledge  which  they  either  themselves  possessed  or 
derived  from  contemporary  men  of  science.  But  I  will  not  on  that  account 
denounce  what  they  say  correctly  in  accordance  with  real  fact,  as  untrue  or 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  CREATION  270 

accidentally  true.  On  the  contrary,  whenever  the  worJs  of  a  person  can  be 
interpreted  in  such  a  manner  that  they  agree  with  fully  established  facts,  it 
IS  the  duty  of  every  educated  and  lionest  man  to  do  so. 

CHAPTER  XV 

That  which  is  impossible  has  a  permanent  and  constant  property,  which  is 
not  the  result  of  some  agent,  and  cannot  in  any  way  change,  and  conse- 
quently we  do  not  ascribe  to  God  the  power  of  doing  what  is  impossible. 
No  thinking  man  denies  the  truth  of  this  maxim  ;   none  ignore  it,  but  such 
as  have  no  idea  of  Logic.     There  is,  however,  a  difTerence  of  opinion  among 
philosophers  with  reference  to  the  existence  of  any  particular  thing.     Some 
of  them  consider  its  existence  to  be  impossible,  and  hold  that  God  cannot 
produce  the  thing  in  question,  whilst  others  think  that  it  is  possible,  and  that 
God  can  create  it  if  He  pleases  to  do  so.     E.g.,  all  philosophers  consider  that 
it  is  impossible  for  one  substratum  to  have  at  the  same  moment  two  opposite 
properties,  or  for  the  elementary  components  of  a  thing,  substance  and  acci- 
dent, to  interchange,  so  that  the  substance  becomes  accident,  and  the  accident 
becomes  substance,  or  for  a  material  substance  to  be  without  accident. 
Likewise  it  is  impossible  that  God  should  produce  a  being  like  Himself,  or 
annihilate,  corporify,  or  change  Himself.     The  power  of  God  is  not  assumed 
to  extend  to  any  of  these  impossibilities.     But  the  existence  of  accidents 
independent  of  substance  is  possible  according  to  one  class  of  philosophers, 
the  Mutazilah,  whilst  according  to  others  it  is  impossible  ;  it  must,  however, 
be  added  that  those  who  admit  the  existence  of  an  accident  independent  of 
substance,  have  not  arrived  at  this  conclusion  by  philosophical  research  alone  ; 
but  it  was  mainly  by  the  desire  to  defend  certain  religious  principles,  which 
speculation  had  greatly  shaken,  that  they  had  recourse  to  this  theory.     In  a 
similar  manner  the  creation  of  corporeal  things,  otherwise  than  from  a  sub- 
stance, is  possible  according  to  our  view,  whilst  the  philosophers  say  that  it 
is  impossible.     Again,  whilst  philosophers  say  that  it  is  impossible  to  produce 
a  square  with  a  diagonal  equal  to  one  of  the  sides,  or  a  solid  angle  that  in- 
cludes four  right  angles,  or  similar  things,  it  is  thought  possible  by  some 
persons  who  are  ignorant  of  mathematics,  and  who  only  know  the  words  of 
these  propositions,  but  have  no  idea  of  that  which  is  expressed  by  them.     I 
wonder  whether  this  gate  of  research  is  open,  so  that  all  may  freely  enter, 
and  whilst  one  imagines  a  thing  and  considers  it  possible,  another  is  at  liberty 
to  assert  that  such  a  thing  is  impossible  by  its  very  nature  ;   or  whether  the 
gate  is  closed  and  guarded  by  certain  rules,  so  that  we  are  able  to  decide  with 
certainty  whether  a  thing  is  physically  impossible.     I  should  also  like  to  know, 
in  the  latter  case,  whether  imagination  or  reason  has  to  examine  and  test 
objects  as  to  their  being  possible  or  not ;   likewise  how  things  imagined,  and 
things  conceived  intellectually,  are  to  be  distinguished  from  each  other. 
For  it  occurs  that  we  consider  a  thing  as  physically  possible,  and  then  some 
one  objects,  or  we  ourselves  fear  that  our  opinion  is  only  the  result  of  im.igi- 
nation,  and  not  that  of  reason.  In  such  a  case  it  would  be  desirable  to  ascertain 
whether  there  exists  some  faculty  to  distinguish  between  imagination  and 
intellect,  [and  if  so,]  whether  this  faculty  is  different  from  both,  or  whether 
it  is  part  of  the  intellect  itself  to  distinguish  between  intellectual  and  imagin- 


2So  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ary  objects.  All  this  requires  investigation,  but  it  docs  not  belong  to  the 
theme  of  this  chapter. 

We  have  thus  shown  that  according  to  each  one  of  the  different  theories 
there  are  things  which  are  impossible,  whose  existence  cannot  be  admitted, 
and  whose  creation  is  excluded  from  the  power  of  God,  and  the  assumption 
that  God  does  not  change  their  nature  does  not  imply  weakness  in  God,  or  a 
limit  to  His  power.  Consequently  things  impossible  remain  impossible,  and 
do  not  depend  on  the  action  of  an  agent.  It  is  now  clear  that  a  difference 
of  opinion  exists  only  as  to  the  question  to  which  of  the  two  classes  a  thing 
belongs ;  whether  to  the  class  of  the  impossible,  or  to  that  of  the  possible. 
Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XVI 

The  philosophers  have  uttered  very  perverse  ideas  as  regards  God's  Omni- 
science of  everything  beside  Himself ;  they  have  stumbled  in  such  a  manner 
that  they  cannot  rise  again,  nor  can  those  who  adopt  their  views.  I  will 
further  on  tell  you  the  doubts  that  led  them  to  these  perverse  utterances  on 
this  question ;  and  I  wall  also  tell  you  the  opinion  which  is  taught  by  our 
religion,  and  which  differs  from  the  evil  and  wrong  principles  of  the  philo- 
sophers as  regards  God's  Omniscience. 

The  principal  reason  that  first  induced  the  philosophers  to  adopt  their 
theory  is  this  :  at  first  thought  we  notice  an  absence  of  system  in  human 
affairs.     Some  pious  men  live  a  miserable  and  painful  life,  whilst  some  wicked 
people  enjoy  a  happy  and  pleasant  life.     On  this  account  the  philosophers 
assumed  as  possible  the  cases  which  you  will  now  hear.     They  said  that  only 
one  of  two  things  is  possible,  either  God  is  ignorant  of  the  individual  or  par- 
ticular things  on  earth,  and  does  not  perceive  them,  or  He  perceives  and 
knows  them.     These  are  all  the  cases  possible.     They  then  continued  thus : 
If  He  perceives  and  knows  all  individual  things,  one  of  the  foUovvdng  tliree 
cases  must  take  place  :    (l)  God  arranges  and  manages  human  affairs  well, 
perfectly  and  faultlessly ;    (2)  He  is  overcome  by  obstacles,  and  is  too  weak 
and  powerless  to  manage  human  affairs ;    (3)  He  knows  [all  things]  and  can 
arrange  and  manage  them,  but  leaves  and  abandons  them,  as  too  base,  low, 
and  vile,  or  from  jealousy  ;  as  we  may  also  notice  among  ourselves  some  who 
are  able  to  make  another  person  happy,  well  knowing  what  he  wants  for  his 
happiness,  and  still  in  consequence  of  their  evil  disposition,  their  wickedness 
and  jealousy  against  him,  they  do  not  help  him  to  his  happiness. — This  is 
likewise  a  complete  enumeration  of  all  possible  cases.     For  those  who  have 
a  knowledge  of  a  certain  thing  necessarily  either  (i)  take  care  of  the  thing 
which  they  know,  and  manage  it,  or  (2)  neglect  it  (as  we,  e.g.,  neglect  and 
forget  the  cats  in  our  house,  or  things  of  less    importance)  ;    or  (3)  while 
taking  care  of  it,  have  not  sufficient  power  and  strength  for  its  management, 
although  they  have  the  will  to  do  so.     Having  enumerated  these  different 
cases,  the  philosophers  emphatically  decided  that  of  the  three  cases  possible 
[as    regards    the     management    of    a     thing]    by   one    who    knows    that 
thing],    two    are    inadmissible     in    reference     to    God  —  viz.,    want    of 
power,    or    absence    of    will  ;    because    they    imply    either    evil  disposi- 
tion or   weakness,  neither  of    which   can  by  any  means  be  attributed  to 


GOD'S  OMNISCIENCE  281 

Him.  Consequently  there  remains  only  the  alternative  that  God  is  alto- 
gether ij,morant  of  iuiman  affairs,  or  that  lie  knows  them  and  mana^'cs  them 
well.  Since  we,  however,  notice  that  events  do  not  follow  a  certain  order, 
that  they  cannot  be  determined  by  analogy,  and  arc  not  in  accordance  with 
what  is  wanted,  we  conclude  that  God  has  no  knowledge  of  them  in  any  way 
or  for  any  reason.  This  is  the  argument  which  led  the  philosophers  to  spcaL 
such  blasphemous  words.  In  the  treatise  On  Providencf,  by  Alexander 
Aphrodisiensis,  you  will  find  the  same  as  I  have  said  about  the  different  views 
of  the  philosophers,  and  as  I  have  stated  as  to  the  source  of  their  error. 

You  must  notice  with  surprise  that  the  evil  into  which  these  philosopher? 
have  fallen  is  greater  than  that  from  which  they  sought  to  escape,  and  that 
they  ignore  the  very  thing  which  they  constantly  pointed  out  and  explained 
to  us.  They  have  fallen  into  a  greater  evil  than  that  from  which  they  sought 
to  escape,  because  they  refuse  to  say  that  God  neglects  or  forgets  a  tiling, 
and  yet  they  maintain  that  His  knowledge  is  imperfect,  that  He  is  ignorant 
of  what  is  going  on  here  on  earth,  that  He  does  not  perceive  it.  They  also 
ignore,  wliat  they  constantly  point  out  to  us,  in  as  much  as  they  judge  the 
whole  universe  by  that  which  befalls  individual  men,  although,  according  to 
their  own  view,  frequently  stated  and  explained,  the  evils  of  man  originate 
in  himself,  or  form  part  of  his  material  nature.  We  have  already  discussed 
this  sufficiently.  After  having  laid  this  foundation,  which  is  the  ruin  of  all 
good  principles,  and  destroys  the  majesty  of  all  true  knowledge,  they  sought 
to  remove  the  opprobrium  by  declaring  that  for  many  reasons  it  is  impossible 
that  God  should  have  a  knowledgeof  earthly  things,  for  the  individual  mem- 
bers of  a  species  can  only  be  perceived  by  the  senses,  and  not  by  reason  ;  but 
God  does  not  perceive  by  means  of  any  of  the  senses.  Again,  the  individuals 
are  infinite,  but  knowledge  comprehends  and  circumscribes  the  object  of  its 
action,  and  the  infinite  cannot  be  comprehended  or  circumscribed  ;  further- 
more, knowledge  of  individual  beings,  that  are  subject  to  change,  necessitates 
some  change  in  him  who  possesses  it,  because  this  knowledge  itself  changes 
constantly.  They  have  also  raised  the  following  two  objections  against  tho<(c 
who  hold,  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  that  God  knows 
things  before  they  come  into  existence.  First,  this  theory  implies  that  there 
can  be  knowledge  of  a  thing  that  does  not  exist  at  all ;  secondly,  it  leads  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  knowledge  of  an  object  in  fotfntia  is  identical  with 
the  knowledge  of  that  same  object  in  reality.  They  have  indeed  come  to 
very  evil  conclusions,  and  some  of  them  assumed  that  God  only  knows  the 
species,  not  the  individual  beings,  whilst  others  went  as  far  as  to  contend  that 
God  knows  nothing  beside  Himself,  because  they  believe  that  God  cannot 
have  more  than  one  knowledge. 

Some  of  the  great  philosophers  who  lived  before  Aristotle  agree  with  us, 
that  God  knows  everything,  and  that  nothing  is  hidden  from  Him.  Alex- 
ander also  refers  to  them  in  the  above-mentioned  treatise  ;  he  differs  from 
them,  and  says  that  the  principal  objection  against  this  theory  is  based  on 
the  fact  that  we  clearly  see  evils  befalling  good  men,  and  wicked  men  enjoying 
happiness. 

In  short,  you  see  that  if  these  philosophers  would  find  human  aff.iirs 
managed  according  to  rules  laid  down  by  the  common  people,  they  would 
not  venture  or  presume  to  speak  on  this  subject.     Tliey  are  only  led  to  this 


282  GVIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

speculation  because  they  examine  the  affairs  of  the  good  and  the  wicked,  and 
consider  them  as  being  contrary  to  all  rule,  and  say  in  the  words  of  the  foolish 
in  our  nation,  "  The  way  of  the  Lord  is  not  right "  (Ezek.  xxxiii.  17). 

After  having  shown  that  knowledge  and  Providence  are  connected  with 
each  other,  I  will  now  proceed  to  expound  the  opinions  of  thinkers  on  Provi- 
dence, and  then  I  shall  attempt  to  remove  their  doubts  as  to  God's  know- 
ledge of  individual  beings. 

CHAPTER  XVII 

There  are  four  different  theories  concerning  Divine  Providence  ;  they  are 
all  ancient,  known  since  the  time  of  the  Prophets,  when  the  true  Law  was 
revealed  to  enlighten  these  dark  regions. 

First  Theory. — There  is  no  Providence  at  all  for  anything  in  the  Universe  ; 
all  parts  of  the  Universe,  the  heavens  and  what  they  contain,  owe  their  origin 
to  accident  and  chance  ;  there  exists  no  being  that  rules  and  governs  them 
or  provides  for  them.  This  is  the  theory  of  Epicurus,  who  assumes  also  that 
the  Universe  consists  of  atoms,  that  these  have  combined  by  chance,  and 
have  received  their  various  forms  by  mere  accident.  There  have  been  athe- 
ists among  the  Israelites  who  have  expressed  the  same  view ;  it  is  reported 
of  them:  "They  have  denied  the  Lord,  and  said  he  is  not"  (Jer.  v.  12). 
Aristotle  has  proved  the  absurdity  of  the  theory,  that  the  whole  Universe 
could  have  originated  by  chance  ;  he  has  shown  that,  on  the  contrary,  there 
is  a  being  that  rules  and  governs  the  Universe.  We  have  already  touched 
upon  this  subject  in  the  present  treatise. 

Second  Theory. — Whilst  one  part  of  the  Universe  owes  its  existence  to 
Providence,  and  is  under  the  control  of  a  ruler  and  governor,  another  part  is 
abandoned  and  left  to  chance.  This  is  the  view  of  Aristotle  about  Provi- 
dence, and  I  will  now  explain  to  you  his  theory.  He  holds  that  God  controls 
the  spheres  and  what  they  contain  :  therefore  the  individual  beings  in  the 
spheres  remain  permanently  in  the  same  form.  Alexander  has  also  ex- 
pressed it  in  his  writings  that  Divine  Providence  extends  down  to,  and  ends 
with,  the  sphere  of  the  moon.  This  view  results  from  his  theory  of  the 
Eternity  of  the  Universe  ;  he  believes  that  Providence  is  in  accordance  with 
the  nature  of  the  Universe  :  consequently  in  the  case  of  the  spheres  with 
their  contents,  where  each  individual  being  has  a  permanent  existence, 
Providence  gives  permanency  and  constancy.  From  the  existence  of  the 
spheres  other  beings  derive  existence,  which  are  constant  in  their  species  but 
not  in  their  individuals :  in  the  same  manner  it  is  said  that  Providence  sends 
forth  [from  the  spheres  to  the  earth]  sufficient  influence  to  secure  the  immor- 
tality and  constancy  of  the  species,  without  securing  at  the  same  time  per- 
manence for  the  individual  beings  of  the  species.  But  the  individual  beings 
in  each  species  have  not  been  entirely  abandoned,  that  portion  of  the  materia 
prima  which  has  been  purified  and  refined,  and  has  received  the  faculty  of 
growth,  is  endowed  with  properties  that  enable  it  to  exist  a  certain  time,  to 
attract  what  is  useful  and  to  repel  what  is  useless.  That  portion  of  the 
materia  prima  which  has  been  subject  to  a  further  development,  and  has 
received  the  faculty  of  sensation,  is  endowed  with  other  properties  for  its 
protection  and  preservation  ;   it  has  a  new  faculty  of  moving  freely  toward 


DIVINE  PROVIDENCE  283 

that  which  is  conducive  to,  and  away  from  that  which  is  contrary  to  its  well- 
being.  Each  individual  being  received  besides  such  properties  as  arc  re- 
quired for  the  preservation  of  the  species  to  which  it  belongs.  The  portion 
of  the  materia  prima  which  is  still  more  refined,  and  is  endowed  with  the 
intellectual  faculty,  possesses  a  special  property  by  which  each  individual, 
according  to  the  degree  of  his  perfection,  is  enabled  to  manage,  to  calculate, 
and  to  discover  what  is  conducive  both  to  the  temporary  existence  of  the 
individual  and  to  the  preservation  of  the  species.  All  other  movements, 
however,  which  are  made  by  the  individual  members  of  each  species  arc  due 
to  accident ;  they  are  not,  according  to  Aristotle,  the  result  of  rule  and 
management ;  e.g.,  when  a  storm  or  gale  blows,  it  causes  undoubtedly  some 
leaves  of  a  tree  to  drop,  breaks  off  some  branches  of  another  tree,  tears  away 
a  stone  from  a  heap  of  stones,  raises  dust  over  herbs  and  spoils  them,  and 
stirs  up  the  sea  so  that  a  ship  goes  down  with  the  whole  or  part  of  her  con- 
tents. Aristotle  sees  no  difference  between  the  falling  lA  a  leaf  or  a  stone 
and  the  death  of  the  good  and  noble  people  in  the  ship  ;  nor  docs  he  distin- 
guish between  the  destruction  of  a  multitude  of  ants  caused  by  an  ox  deposit- 
ing on  them  his  excrement  and  the  death  of  worshippers  killed  by  the  fall  of 
the  house  when  its  foundations  give  way  ;  nor  does  he  discriminate  between 
the  case  of  a  cat  killing  a  mouse  that  happens  to  come  in  her  way,  or  that  of  a 
spider  catching  a  fly,  and  that  of  a  hungry  lion  meeting  a  prophet  and  tearing 
him.  In  short,  the  opinion  of  Aristotle  is  this  :  Everything  is  the  result  of 
management  which  is  constant,  which  does  not  come  to  an  end  and  does  not 
change  any  of  its  properties,  as  e.g.,  the  heavenly  beings,  and  everything 
which  continues  according  to  a  certain  rule,  and  deviates  from  it  only  rarely 
and  exceptionally,  as  is  the  case  in  objects  of  Nature.  All  these  are  the  result 
of  management,  i.e.,  in  a  close  relation  to  Divine  Providence.  But  that 
which  is  not  constant,  and  does  not  follow  a  certain  rule,  as  e.g.,  incidents 
in  the  existence  of  the  individual  beings  in  each  species  of  plants  or  animals, 
whether  rational  or  irrational,  is  due  to  chance  and  not  to  management ;  it 
is  in  no  relation  to  Divine  Providence.  Aristotle  holds  that  it  is  even  im- 
possible to  ascribe  to  Providence  the  management  of  these  things.  This 
view  is  closely  connected  with  his  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe, 
and  with  his  opinion  that  everything  different  from  the  existing  order  of 
things  in  Nature  is  impossible.  It  is  the  belief  of  those  who  turned  away 
from  our  Law,  and  said  :    "  God  hath  forsaken  the  earth  "  (Ezek.  ix.  9). 

Third  Theory. — This  theory  is  the  reverse  of  the  second.  According  to 
this  theory,  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole  Universe,  neither  a  class  nor  an 
individual  being,  that  is  due  to  chance;  everything  is  the  result  of  will, 
intention,  and  rule.  It  is  a  matter  of  course  that  he  who  rules  must  know 
[that  which  is  under  his  control].  The  Mohammedan  Ashariyah  adhere  to 
this  theory,  notwithstanding  evident  absurdities  implied  in  it ;  for  they  admit 
that  Aristotle  is  correct  in  assuming  one  and  the  same  cause  [viz.,  the  wind] 
for  the  fall  of  leaves  [from  the  tree]  and  for  the  death  of  a  man  [drowned  in 
the  sea].  But  they  hold  at  the  same  time  that  the  wind  did  not  blow  by 
chance  ;  it  is  God  that  caused  it  to  move  ;  it  is  not  therefore  the  wind  that 
caused  the  leaves  to  fall ;  each  leaf  falls  according  to  the  Divine  decree  ;  it 
is  God  who  caused  it  to  fall  at  a  certain  time  and  in  a  certain  place  ;  it  could 
not  have  fallen  before  or  after  that  time  or  in  another  place,  as  this  has  prc- 

I. 


284  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

viouslv  been  decreed.  The  Ashariyah  were  therefore  compelled  to  assume 
that  motion  and  rest  of  living  being!:  are  predestined,  and  that  it  is  not  in  the 
power  of  man  to  do  a  certain  thing  or  to  leave  it  undone.  The  theory  further 
implies  a  denial  of  possibility  in  these  things ;  they  can  only  be  either  neces- 
sary or  impossible.  The  followers  of  this  theory  accepted  also  the  last- 
mentioned  proposition,  and  say,  that  we  call  certain  things  possible,  as  e.g., 
the  facts  that  Zeid  stands,  and  that  Amr  is  coming  ;  but  they  are  only 
possible  for  us,  whilst  in  their  relation  to  God  tliey  cannot  be  called  possible  ; 
they  are  either  necessary  or  impossible.  It  follows  also  from  this  theory, 
that  precepts  are  perfectly  useless,  since  the  people  to  whom  any  law  is  given 
are  unable  to  do  anything  :  they  can  neither  do  what  they  are  commanded 
nor  abstain  from  what  they  are  forbidden.  The  supporters  of  this  theory 
hold  that  it  was  the  will  of  God  to  send  prophets,  to  command,  to  forbid, 
to  promise,  and  to  threaten,  although  we  have  no  power  [over  our  actions]. 
A  duty  would  thus  be  imposed  upon  us  which  is  impossible  for  us  to  carry 
out,  and  it  is  even  possible  that  we  may  suffer  punishment  when  obeying  the 
command  and  receive  reward  when  disobeying  it.  According  to  this  theory, 
it  must  also  be  assumed  that  the  actions  of  God  have  no  final  cause.  All 
these  absurdities  are  admitted  by  the  Ashariyah  for  the  purpose  of  saving 
this  theory.  When  we  see  a  person  born  blind  or  leprous,  who  could  not 
have  merited  a  punishment  for  previous  sins,  they  say.  It  is  the  will  of  God ; 
when  a  pious  worshipper  is  tortured  and  slain,  it  is  likewise  the  will  of  God  ; 
and  no  injustice  can  be  asserted  to  Him  for  that,  for  according  to  their  opinion 
it  is  proper  that  God  should  afRict  the  innocent  and  do  good  to  the  sinner. 
Their  views  on  these  matters  are  well  known. 

Fourth  Theory. — Man  has  free  will  ;  it  is  therefore  intelligible  that  the 
Law  contains  commands  and  prohibitions,  with  announcements  of  reward 
and  punishment.  All  acts  of  God  are  due  to  wasdom  ;  no  injustice  is  found 
in  Him,  and  He  does  not  afflict  the  good.  The  Mu'tazila  profess  this  theory, 
although  they  do  not  believe  in  man's  absolute  free  will.  They  hold  also 
that  God  takes  notice  of  the  falling  of  the  leaf  and  the  destruction  of  the  ant, 
and  that  His  Providence  extends  over  all  things.  This  theory  likewise  im- 
plies contradictions  and  absurdities.  The  absurdities  are  these  :  The  fact 
that  some  persons  are  born  with  defects,  although  they  have  not  sinned  pre- 
viously, is  ascribed  to  the  wisdom  of  God,  it  being  better  for  those  persons  to 
be  in  such  a  condition  than  to  be  in  a  normal  state,  though  we  do  not  see  why 
it  is  better  ;  and  they  do  not  suffer  thereby  any  punishment  at  all,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  enjoy  God's  goodness.  In  a  similar  manner  the  slaughter  of 
the  pious  is  explained  as  being  for  them  the  source  of  an  increase  of  reward 
in  future  life.  They  go  even  further  in  their  absurdities.  We  ask  them 
why  is  God  only  just  to  man  and  not  to  other  beings,  and  how  has  the  irra- 
tional animal  sinned,  that  it  is  condemned  to  be  slaughtered  ?  and  they 
reply  it  is  good  for  the  animal,  for  it  will  receive  reward  for  it  in  the  world  to 
come  ;  also  the  flea  and  the  louse  will  there  receive  compensation  for  their 
untimely  death  :  the  same  reasoning  they  apply  to  the  mouse  torn  by  a  cat 
or  vulture  ;  the  wisdom  of  God  decreed  this  for  the  mouse,  in  order  to  re- 
ward it  after  death  for  the  mishap.  I  do  not  consider  it  proper  to  blame  the 
followers  of  any  of  the  [last  named]  three  theories  on  Providence,  for  they 
have  been  driven  to  accept  them  by  weighty  considerations.     Aristotle  was 


DIVINE  PROVIDENCE  285 

guidetl  by  that  which  appears  to  be  the  nature  of  thinj^.  The  Ashariyah 
refused  to  ascribe  to  God  ignorance  about  anything,  and  to  gay  that  God 
whilst  knowing  one  individual  being  or  one  portion  of  tlie  Universe  is  ignorant 
of  another  portion  ;  they  preferred  to  admit  the  above-mentioned  absur- 
dities. The  Mu'tazilites  refused  to  assume  that  God  docs  what  is  wrong 
and  unjust ;  on  the  other  hand,  they  would  not  contradict  common  sense 
and  say  that  it  was  not  wrong  to  inflict  pain  on  the  guiltless,  or  that  the 
mission  of  the  Prophets  and  the  giving  of  the  Law  had  no  intelligible  reason. 
They  likewdse  preferred  to  admit  the  above-named  absurdities.  But  they 
even  contradicted  themselves,  because  they  believe  on  the  one  hand  that 
God  knows  everything,  and  on  the  other  that  man  has  free  will.  By  a  little 
consideration  we  discover  the  contradiction. 

Fifth  Theory. — This  is  our  theory,  or  that  of  our  Law.  I  will  show  you 
[first]  the  view  expressed  on  this  subject  in  our  prophetical  books,  and  gener- 
ally accepted  by  our  Sages.  I  will  then  give  the  opinion  of  some  later  authors 
among  us,  and  lastly,  I  will  explain  my  own  belief.  The  theory  of  man's 
perfectly  free  will  is  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law  of  our 
Teacher  Moses,  and  of  those  who  follow  the  Law.  According  to  this  prin- 
ciple man  docs  what  is  in  his  power  to  do,  by  his  nature,  his  choice,  and  his 
will ;  and  his  action  is  not  due  to  any  faculty  created  for  the  purpose.  All 
species  of  irrational  animals  likewise  move  by  their  own  free  will.  This  is  the 
Will  of  God  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  due  to  the  eternal  divine  will  that  all  living 
beings  should  move  freely,  and  that  man  should  have  power  to  act  according 
to  his  will  or  choice  within  the  limits  of  his  capacity.  Against  this  principle 
we  hear,  thank  God,  no  opposition  on  the  part  of  our  nation.  Another  fun- 
damental principle  taught  by  the  Law  of  Moses  is  this :  Wrong  cannot  be 
ascribed  to  God  in  any  way  whatever  ;  all  evils  and  afflictions  as  well  as  all 
kinds  of  happiness  of  man,  whether  they  concern  one  individual  person  or  a 
community,  are  distributed  according  to  justice  ;  they  are  the  result  of  strict 
judgment  that  admits  no  wrong  whatever.  Even  when  a  person  suffers  pain 
in  consequence  of  a  thorn  having  entered  into  his  hand,  although  it  is  at  once 
drawn  out,  it  is  a  punishment  that  has  been  inflicted  on  him  [for  sin],  and 
the  least  pleasure  he  enjoys  is  a  reward  [for  some  good  action] ;  all  this  is 
meted  out  by  strict  justice  ;  as  is  said  in  Scripture,  "  all  his  ways  arc  judg- 
ment "  (Deut.  xxxii.  4) ;  we  are  only  ignorant  of  the  working  of  that  judgment. 

The  diflterent  theories  are  now  fully  explained  to  you  ;  everything  in  the 
varying  human  aflFairs  is  due  to  chance,  according  to  Aristotle,  to  the  Divine 
Will  alone  according  to  the  Ashariyah,  to  Divine  Wisdom  according  to  the 
Mu'tazilites,  to  the  merits  of  man  according  to  our  opinion.  It  is  therefore 
possible,  according  to  the  Ashariyah,  that  God  inflicts  pain  on  a  good  and 
pious  man  in  this  world,  and  keeps  him  for  ever  in  fire,  which  is  assumed  to 
rage  in  the  world  to  come  ;  they  simply  say  it  is  the  Will  of  God.  The 
Mu'tazilites  would  consider  this  as  injustice,  and  therefore  assume  that 
every  being,  even  an  ant,  that  is  stricken  with  pain  [in  this  world],  has  com- 
pensation for  it,  as  has  been  mentioned  above  ;  and  it  is  due  to  God's  NVis- 
dom  that  a  being  is  struck  and  afflicted  in  order  to  receive  compensation. 
We,  however,  believe  that  all  these  human  afltairs  arc  managed  with  justice  ; 
far  be  it  from  God  to  do  wrong,  to  punish  any  one  unless  the  punishment  is 
necessary  and  merited.     It  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  Law,  that  all  is  done  in 


286  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

accordance  with  justice  ;  and  the  words  of  our  Sages  generally  express  the 
same  idea.  They  clearly  say  :  "  There  is  no  death  without  sin,  no  sufferings 
without  transgression."  (B.  T.  Shabbath,  55^.)  Again,  "  The  deserts  of  man 
are  meted  out  to  him  in  the  same  measure  which  he  himself  employs." 
(Mish.  Sotah,  i.  7.)  These  are  the  words  of  the  Mishnah.  Our  Sages 
declare  it  wherever  opportunity  is  given,  that  the  idea  of  God  necessarily 
implies  justice ;  that  He  will  reward  the  most  pious  for  all  their  pure  and 
upright  actions,  although  no  direct  commandment  was  given  them  through 
a  prophet ;  and  that  He  will  punish  all  the  evil  deeds  of  men,  although 
they  have  not  been  prohibited  by  a  prophet,  if  common  sense  warns  against 
them,  as  e.g.,  injustice  and  violence.  Thus  our  Sages  say :  "  God  does  not 
deprive  any  being  of  the  full  reward  [of  its  good  deed]  "  (B.  T.  Pes.  ilSa) 
again,  "  He  who  says  that  God  remits  part  of  a  punishment,  will  be  punished 
severely ;  He  is  long-suffering,  but  is  sure  to  eiact  payment."  (B,  T. 
Baba  K.  50a.)  Another  saying  is  this :  "  He  who  has  received  a  command- 
ment and  acts  accordingly  is  not  like  him  who  acts  in  the  same  manner  without 
being  commanded  to  do  so  "  (B.  T.  Kidd.  31a) ;  and  it  is  distinctly  added 
that  he  who  does  a  good  thing  without  being  commanded,  receives  neverthe- 
less his  reward.  The  same  principle  is  expressed  in  all  sayings  of  our  Sages. 
But  they  contain  an  additional  doctrine  which  is  not  found  in  the  Law  ;  viz., 
the  doctrine  of  "  afflictions  of  love,"  as  taught  by  some  of  our  Sages. 
According  to  this  doctrine  it  is  possible  that  a  person  be  afflicted  without 
having  previously  committed  any  sin,  in  order  that  his  future  reward  may 
be  increased  ;  a  view  which  is  held  by  the  Mu'tazilites,  but  is  not  supported 
by  any  Scriptural  text.  Be  not  misled  by  the  accounts  of  trials,  such  as 
"  God  tried  Abraham  "  (Gen.  ixii.  l)  ;  "  He  afflicted  thee  and  made  thee 
hungry,"  etc.  (Deut.  viii.  3) ;  for  you  will  hear  more  on  this  subject  later  on 
(chap,  xjciv.).  Our  Law  is  only  concerned  wdth  the  relations  of  men ;  but 
the  idea  that  irrational  living  beings  should  receive  a  reward,  has  never  before 
been  heard  of  in  our  nation  ;  the  wise  men  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  do  not 
notice  it ;  only  some  of  the  later  Geonim  were  pleased  with  it  when  they 
heard  it  from  the  sect  of  the  Mu'tazilites,  and  accepted  it. 

My  opinion  on  this  principle  of  Divine  Providence  I  will  now  explain  to 
you.  In  the  principle  which  I  now  proceed  to  expound  I  do  not  rely  on 
demonstrative  proof,  but  on  my  conception  of  the  spirit  of  the  Divine  Law, 
and  the  writings  of  the  Prophets.  The  principle  which  I  accept  is  far  less 
open  to  objections,  and  is  more  reasonable  than  the  opinions  mentioned  before. 
It  is  this  :  In  the  lower  or  sublunary  portion  of  the  Universe  Di\'ine  Provi- 
dence does  not  extend  to  the  individual  members  of  species  except  in  the  case 
of  mankind.  It  is  only  in  this  species  that  the  incidents  in  the  existence  of 
the  individual  beings,  their  good  and  evil  fortunes,  are  the  result  of  justice, 
in  accordance  with  the  words,  "  For  all  His  ways  are  judgment."  But  I 
agree  with  Aristotle  as  regards  all  other  living  beings,  and  a  fortiori  as  regards 
plants  and  all  the  rest  of  earthly  creatures.  For  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is 
through  the  interference  of  Divine  Providence  that  a  certain  leaf  drops  [from 
a  tree],  nor  do  I  hold  that  when  a  certain  spider  catches  a  certain  fly,  that 
this  is  the  direct  result  of  a  special  decree  and  will  of  God  in  that  moment ; 
it  is  not  by  a  particular  Di\ine  decree  that  the  spittle  of  a  certain  person 
moved,  fell  on  a  certain  gnat  in  a  certain  place,  and  killed  it ;  nor  is  it  by  the 


DIVINE  PROVIDENCE  287 

direct  will  of  God  that  a  certain  fish  catches  and  swallows  a  certain  worm 
on  the  surface  of  the  water.  In  all  these  cases  the  action  is,  according  to  my 
opinion,  entirely  due  to  chance,  as  taught  by  Aristotle.  Divine  Providence 
is  connected  with  Divine  intellectual  influence,  and  the  same  beings  which 
are  benefited  by  the  latter  so  as  to  become  intellectual,  and  to  comprehend 
things  comprehensible  to  rational  beings,  are  also  under  the  control  of 
Divine  Providence,  which  examines  all  their  deeds  in  order  to  reward  or 
punish  them.  It  may  be  by  mere  chance  that  a  ship  goes  down  with  all 
her  contents,  as  in  the  above-mentioned  instance,  or  the  roof  of  a  house 
falls  upon  those  within ;  but  it  is  not  due  to  chance,  according  to  our  view, 
that  in  the  one  instance  the  men  went  into  the  ship,  or  remained  in  the  house 
in  the  other  instance  ;  it  is  due  to  the  will  of  God,  and  is  in  accordance  with 
the  justice  of  His  judgments,  the  method  of  which  r^:  mind  is  incapable  of 
understanding.  I  have  been  induced  to  accept  this  theory  by  the  circum- 
stance that  I  have  not  met  in  any  of  the  prophetical  books  with  a  description 
of  God's  Providence  otherwise  than  in  relation  to  human  beings.  The  pro- 
phets even  express  their  surprise  that  God  should  take  notice  of  man,  who 
is  too  little  and  too  unimportant  to  be  worthy  of  the  attention  of  the  Cre- 
ator ;  how,  then,  should  other  living  creatures  be  considered  as  proper 
objects  for  Divine  Providence  !  Comp.  "  What  is  man,  that  thou  takcst 
knowledge  of  him  ?  "  (Ps.  cxliv.  3)  ;  "  What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful 
of  him  ?  "  {ibid.  viii.  8).  It  is  clearly  expressed  in  many  Scriptural  pass.igc$ 
that  God  provides  for  all  men,  and  controls  all  their  deeds — e.g.,  "  He  fash- 
ioneth  their  hearts  alike,  he  considcreth  all  their  works"  {ibid,  xxxiii.  15); 
"  For  thine  eyes  are  open  upon  all  the  ways  of  the  sons  of  men,  to  give  every 
one  according  to  his  ways  "  (Jer.  xxxii.  19).  Again  :  "  For  his  eyes  are  upon 
the  ways  of  man,  and  he  seeth  all  his  goings  "  (Job  xxxii.  21).  In  the  Law 
there  occur  instances  of  the  fact  that  men  are  governed  by  God,  and  that 
their  actions  are  examined  by  him.  Comp.  "  In  the  day  when  I  visit  I  will 
visit  their  sin  upon  them  "  (Exod.  xxxii.  34) ;  "  I  will  even  appoint  over  you 
terror  "  (Lev.  xxvi.  16)  ;  "  Whosoever  hath  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I 
blot  out  of  my  book  "  (Exod.  xxxii.  33)  ;  "  The  same  soul  will  I  destroy  " 
(Lev.  xxiii.  30)  ;  "  I  will  even  set  my  face  against  that  soul  "  {ibid.  xx.  6). 
There  are  many  instances  of  this  kind.  All  that  is  mentioned  of  the  history 
of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  is  a  perfect  proof  that  Divine  Providence  ex- 
tends to  every  man  individually.  But  the  condition  of  the  individual  beings 
of  other  living  creatures  is  undoubtedly  the  same  as  has  been  stated  by  Aris- 
totle. On  that  account  it  is  allowed,  even  commanded,  to  kill  animals ;  wc 
are  permitted  to  use  them  according  to  our  pleasure.  The  view  that  other 
living  beings  are  only  governed  by  Divine  Providence  in  the  way  described 
by  Aristode,  is  supported  by  the  words  of  the  Prophet  Habakkuk.  When 
he  perceived  the  victories  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  saw  the  multitude  of 
those  slain  by  him,  he  said,  "  O  God,  it  is  as  if  men  were  abandoned,  neg- 
lected, and  unprotected  like  fish  and  like  worms  of  the  earth."  He  thus 
shows  that  these  classes  are  abandoned.  This  is  expressed  in  the  following 
passage  :  "  And  makest  men  as  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  as  the  creeping  things, 
that  have  no  ruler  over  them.  They  take  up  all  of  them  with  the  angle,"  etc. 
(Hab.  i.  14,  15).  The  prophet  then  declares  that  such  is  not  the  case  ;  for 
the  events  referred  to  are  not  the  result  of  abandonment,  forsaking,  and 


288  GUIDE   FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

absence  of  Providence,  but  are  intended  as  a  punishment  for  the  people,  who 
well  deserved  all  that  befell  them.  He  therefore  says  :  "  O  Lord,  Thou 
hast  ordained  them  for  judgment,  and  O  mighty  God,  Thou  hast  established 
them  for  correction"  {ibid.  ver.  12).  Our  opinion  is  not  contradicted  by 
Scriptural  passages  like  the  following  :  "  He  giveth  to  the  beast  his  food  " 
(Ps.  cxlvii.  9)  ;  "  The  young  lions  roar  after  their  prey,  and  seek  their  meat 
from  God  "  {ibid,  civ,  21)  ;  "  Thou  openest  thine  hand,  and  satisfiest  the 
desire  of  every  living  thing  "  (ibid.  cxlv.  16)  ;  or  by  the  saying  of  our  Sages  : 
"  He  sitteth  and  feedeth  all,  from  the  horns  of  the  unicorns  even  unto  the 
eggs  of  insects."  There  are  many  similar  sayings  extant  in  the  writings  of 
our  Sages,  but  they  imply  nothing  that  is  contrary  to  my  view.  All  these 
passages  refer  to  Providence  in  relation  to  species,  and  not  to  Providence  in 
relation  to  individual  animals.  The  acts  of  God  are  as  it  were  enumerated  ; 
how  He  provides  for  every  species  the  necessary  food  and  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence. This  is  clear  and  plain.  Aristotle  likewise  holds  that  this  kind 
of  Providence  is  necessary,  and  is  in  actual  existence.  Alexander  also  notices 
this  fact  in  the  name  of  Aristotle,  viz.,  that  every  species  has  its  nourish- 
ment prepared  for  its  individual  members ;  otherwise  the  species  would  un- 
doubtedly have  perished.  It  does  not  require  much  consideration  to  under- 
stand this.  There  is  a  rule  laid  down  by  our  Sages  that  it  is  directly  pro- 
hibited in  the  Law  to  cause  pain  to  an  animal,  and  is  based  on  the  words : 
"  Wherefore  hast  thou  smitten  thine  ass  ?  "  etc.  (Num.  xxii.  32).  But  the 
object  of  this  rule  is  to  make  us  perfect ;  that  we  should  not  assume  cruel 
habits ;  and  that  we  should  not  uselessly  cause  pain  to  others ;  that,  on  the 
contrary,  we  should  be  prepared  to  show  pity  and  mercy  to  all  living  crea- 
tures, except  when  necessity  demands  the  contrary  :  "  When  thy  soul 
longeth  to  eat  flesh,"  etc.  (Deut.  xii.  20).  We  should  not  kill  animals  for  the 
purpose  of  practising  cruelty,  or  for  the  purpose  of  play.  It  cannot  be 
objected  to  this  theory.  Why  should  God  select  mankind  as  the  object  of  His 
special  Providence,  and  not  other  living  beings  ?  For  he  who  asks  this  ques- 
tion must  also  inquire.  Why  has  man  alone,  of  all  species  of  animals,  been 
endowed  with  intellect  ?  The  answer  to  this  second  question  must  be, 
according  to  the  three  afore-mentioned  theories :  It  was  the  Will  of  God, 
it  is  the  decree  of  His  Wisdom,  or  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  Nature. 
The  same  answers  apply  to  the  first  question.  Understand  thoroughly  my 
theory,  that  I  do  not  ascribe  to  God  ignorance  of  anything  or  any  kind  of 
weakness ;  I  hold  that  Divine  Providence  is  related  and  closely  connected 
with  the  intellect,  because  Providence  can  only  proceed  from  an  intelligent 
being,  from  a  being  that  is  itself  the  most  perfect  Intellect.  Those  creatures, 
therefore,  which  receive  part  of  that  intellectual  influence,  will  become  sub- 
ject to  the  action  of  Providence  in  the  same  proportion  as  they  arc  acted  upon 
by  the  Intellect.  This  theory  is  in  accordance  with  reason  and  with  the 
teaching  of  Scripture,  whilst  the  other  theories  previously  mentioned  either 
exaggerate  Divine  Providence  or  detract  from  it.  In  the  former  case  they 
lead  to  confusion  and  entire  nonsense,  and  cause  us  to  deny  reason  and  to 
contradict  that  which  is  perceived  with  the  senses.  The  latter  case,  viz., 
the  theory  that  Divine  Providence  does  not  extend  to  man,  and  that  there 
is  no  difference  between  man  and  other  animals,  implies  very  bad  notions 
about  God  ;  it  disturbs  all  social  order,  removes  and  destroys  all  the  moral 
and  intellectual  virtues  of  man. 


DIVINE  PROVIDENCE  289 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

Having  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  of  all  living  heing«  mankinJ 
alone  is  directly  under  the  control  of  Divine  Providence,  I  will  now  add  the 
following  remarks  :  It  is  an  established  fact  that  species  have  no  existence 
except  in  our  own  minds.  Species  and  other  classes  arc  merely  ideas  formed 
in  our  minds,  whilst  everything  in  real  existence  is  an  individual  object,  or 
an  aggregate  of  individual  objects.  This  being  granted,  it  must  further  be 
admitted  that  the  result  of  the  existing  Divine  influence,  that  reaches  man- 
kind through  the  human  intellect,  is  identical  with  individual  intellects  really 
in  existence,  with  which,  e.g.,  Zeid,  Amr,  Kaled  and  Bckr,  arc  endowed. 
Hence  it  follows,  in  accordance  with  what  I  have  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  that  the  greater  the  share  is  which  a  person  has  obtained  of  thi» 
Divine  influence,  on  account  of  both  his  physical  predisposition  and  his 
training,  the  greater  must  also  be  the  effect  of  Divine  Providence  upon  him, 
for  the  action  of  Divine  Providence  is  proportional  to  the  endowment  of 
intellect,  as  has  been  mentioned  above.  The  relation  of  Divine  Providence 
is  therefore  not  the  same  to  all  men  ;  the  greater  the  human  perfection  a 
person  has  attained,  the  greater  the  benefit  he  derives  from  Divine  Provi- 
dence. This  benefit  is  very  great  in  the  case  of  prophets,  and  varies  accord- 
ing to  the  degree  of  their  prophetic  faculty  ;  as  it  varies  in  the  case  of  pious 
and  good  men  according  to  their  piety  and  uprightness.  For  it  is  the  inten- 
sity of  the  Divine  intellectual  influence  that  has  inspired  the  prophets,  guided 
the  good  in  their  actions,  and  perfected  the  wisdom  of  the  pious.  In  the 
same  proportion  as  ignorant  and  disobedient  persons  are  deficient  in  that 
Divine  influence,  their  condition  is  inferior,  and  their  rank  equal  to  that  of 
irrational  beings  ;  and  they  are  "  like  unto  the  beasts  "  (Ps.  xlix.  21).  For 
this  reason  it  was  not  only  considered  a  light  thing  to  slay  them,  but  it  was 
even  directly  commanded  for  the  benefit  of  mankind.  This  belief  that  G'xi 
provides  for  every  individual  human  being  in  accordance  with  his  merits  is 
one  of  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  the  Law  is  founded. 

Consider  how  the  action  of  Divine  Providence  is  described  in  reference 
to  every  incident  in  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs,  to  their  occupations,  and  even 
to  their  passions,  and  how  God  promised  to  direct  His  attention  to  them. 
Thus  God  said  to  Abraham,  "  I  am  thy  shield  "  (Gen.  xv.  l) ;  to  Isaac.  "  I 
will  be  with  thee,  and  I  will  bless  thee  "  (ibid.  xxvi.  3)  ;  to  Jacob,  "  I  am 
with  thee,  and  will  keep  thee  "  {ibid,  xxviii.  15)  ;  to  [Moses]  the  chief  of  the 
Prophets,  "  Certainly  I  will  be  with  thee,  and  this  shall  be  a  token  unto  thee  " 
(Exod.  iii.  12)  ;  to  Joshua,  "  As  I  was  with  Moses,  so  I  shall  be  with  thee  " 
(Josh,  i.  5).  It  is  clear  that  in  all  these  cases  the  action  of  Providence  has 
been  proportional  to  man's  perfection.  The  following  verse  describe*  how 
Providence  protects  good  and  pious  men,  and  abandons  fools;  "lie  will 
keep  the  feet  of  his  saints,  and  the  wicked  shall  be  silent  in  darkness ;  for  by 
strength  shall  no  man  prevail  "  (i  Sam.  ii.  9).  When  we  see  that  some  men 
escape  plagues  and  mishaps,  whilst  others  perish  by  them,  we  must  not  attri- 
bute this  to  a  difference  in  the  properties  of  their  bodies,  or  in  their  physical 
constitution,  "  for  by  strength  shall  no  man  prevail  "  ;  but  it  must  be  attri- 
buted to  their  different  degrees  of  perfecrion,  some  approaching  God,  whiNt 
others  moving  away  from  Him.     Those  who  approach  Him  arc  he^t  pr-- 


290  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

tected,  and  '*  He  will  keep  the  feet  of  his  saints  "  ;  but  those  who  keep  far 
away  from  Him  are  left  exposed  to  what  may  befall  them  ;  there  is  nothing 
that  could  protect  them  from  what  might  happen  ;  they  are  like  those  who 
walk  in  darkness,  and  are  certain  to  stumble.  The  protection  of  the  pious 
by  Providence  is  also  expressed  in  the  following  passages  : — "  He  keepeth  all 
his  bones,"  etc.  (Ps.  xxxiv.  21)  ;  "  The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  upon  the  right- 
eous "  (ibid.  ver.  l6)  ;  "  He  shall  call  upon  me  and  I  shall  answer  him  "  (ibid. 
xci.  15).  There  are  in  Scripture  many  more  passages  expressing  the  prin- 
ciple that  men  enjoy  Divine  protection  in  proportion  to  their  perfection  and 
piety.  The  philosophers  have  likewise  discussed  this  subject.  Abu-nasr, 
in  the  Introduction  to  his  Commentary  on  Aristotle^s  Nikomachean  Ethics,  says 
as  follows : — Those  who  possess  the  faculty  of  raising  their  souls  from  virtue 
to  virtue  obtain,  according  to  Plato,  Divine  protection  to  a  higher  degree. 

Now  consider  how  by  this  method  of  reasoning  we  have  arrived  at  the 
truth  taught  by  the  Prophets,  that  every  person  has  his  individual  share  of 
Divine  Providence  in  proportion  to  his  perfection.  For  philosophical  re- 
search leads  to  this  conclusion,  if  we  assume,  as  has  been  mentioned  above, 
that  Divine  Providence  is  in  each  case  proportional  to  the  person's  intellectual 
development.  It  is  wrong  to  say  that  Divine  Providence  extends  only  to 
the  species,  and  not  to  individual  beings,  as  some  of  the  philosophers  teach. 
For  only  individual  beings  have  real  existence,  and  individual  beings  are 
endowed  with  Divine  Intellect ;  Divine  Providence  acts,  therefore,  upon 
these  individual  beings. 

Study  this  chapter  as  it  ought  to  be  studied  ;  you  will  find  in  it  all  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Law  ;  you  will  see  that  these  are  in  conformity 
with  philosophical  speculation,  and  all  difficulties  will  be  removed  ;  you  will 
have  a  clear  idea  of  Divine  Providence. 

After  having  described  the  various  philosophical  opinions  on  Providence, 
and  on  the  manner  how  God  governs  the  Universe,  I  will  briefly  state  the 
opinion  of  our  co-religionists  on  the  Omniscience  of  God,  and  what  I  have 
to  remark  on  this  subject 

CHAPTER  XIX 

It  is  undoubtedly  an  innate  idea  that  God  must  be  perfect  in  every  respect 
and  cannot  be  deficient  in  anything.  It  is  almost  an  innate  idea  that  ignor- 
ance in  anything  is  a  deficiency,  and  that  God  can  therefore  not  be  ignorant 
of  anything.  But  some  thinkers  assume,  as  I  said  before,  haughtily  and  ex- 
ultingly,  that  God  knows  certain  things  and  is  ignorant  of  certain  other 
things.  They  did  so  because  they  imagined  that  they  discovered  a  certain 
absence  of  order  in  man's  affairs,  most  of  which  are  not  only  the  result  of 
physical  properties,  but  also  of  those  faculties  which  he  possesses  as  a  being 
endowed  with  free  will  and  reason.  The  Prophets  have  already  stated  the 
proof  which  ignorant  persons  offer  for  their  belief  that  God  does  not  know 
our  actions ;  viz.,  the  fact  that  wicked  people  are  seen  in  happiness,  ease,  and 
peace.  This  fact  leads  also  righteous  and  pious  persons  to  think  that  it  is  of 
no  use  for  them  to  aim  at  that  which  is  good  and  to  suffer  for  it  through  the 
opposition  of  other  people.  But  the  Prophets  at  the  same  time  relate  how 
their  own  thoughts  were  engaged  on  this  question,  and  how  they  were  at  last 


DIVINE  PROVIDENCE  291 

convinced  that  in  tlie  instances  to  wliich  these  ar^'umeiiis  refer,  only  the  ci»d 
and  not  the  beginning  ought  to  be  taken  into  account.  The  fdll.jwinK  «»  a 
description  of  these  reflections  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  11,  seq):  "And  they  say,  How 
does  God  know  ?  and  is  there  knowledge  in  the  Most  High  ?  HehoKi,  the* 
are  the  ungodly  who  prosper  in  tlie  world  ;  they  increase  in  riches.  Verily 
I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain,  and  washed  my  hands  in  innocency."  He 
then  continues,  "  When  I  thought  to  know  this,  it  was  too  painful  for  mc, 
until  I  went  into  the  sanctuary  of  God  ;  then  understood  I  their  end.  Surely 
thou  didst  set  them  in  slippery  places ;  thou  castedst  them  down  into  de- 
struction. How  arc  they  brought  into  desolation,  as  in  a  moment !  They 
are  utterly  consumed  with  terrors."  The  very  same  ideas  have  also  been 
expressed  by  the  prophet  Malachi,  for  he  says  thus  (Mai.  iii.  13-18)  :  "  Your 
words  have  been  stout  against  me,  saith  the  Lord.  As  you  have  said,  It  is  vain 
to  serve  God  ;  and  what  profit  is  it  that  we  have  kept  his  ordinance,  and  that 
wo  have  walked  mournfully  before  the  Lord  of  hosts  ?  And  now  we  call  the 
proud  happy  ;  yea,  they  that  work  wickedness  are  set  up  ;  yea,  they  that 
tempt  God  are  even  delivered.  Then  they  that  feared  the  Lord  fpakc  often 
one  to  another,  etc.  Then  shall  ye  return  and  discern  between  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked,  between  him  that  serveth  God  and  him  that  serveth  him 
not."  David  likewise  shows  how  general  this  view  was  in  his  time,  and  how 
it  led  and  caused  people  to  sin  and  to  oppress  one  another.  At  first  he 
argues  against  this  theory,  and  then  he  declares  that  God  is  omniscient.  He 
says  as  follows  : — "  They  slay  the  widow  and  the  stranger,  and  murder  the 
fatherless.  Yet  they  say,  The  Lord  shall  not  see,  neither  shall  the  God  of 
Jacob  regard  it.  Understand,  ye  brutish  among  the  people,  and  yc  fools, 
when  will  you  be  wise  .''  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not  hear  ?  \\c 
that  formed  the  eye,  shall  he  not  see  ?  He  that  chastiscth  nations,  shall 
not  he  correct  ?  or  he  that  teacheth  man  knowledge  ?  "  I  will  now  show 
you  the  meaning  of  these  arguments,  but  first  I  will  point  out  how  the 
opponents  to  the  words  of  the  Prophets  misunderstood  this  passage.  Many 
years  ago  some  intelligent  co-religionists — they  were  physicians — told  mc 
that  they  were  surprised  at  the  words  of  David  ;  for  it  would  follow  from 
his  arguments  that  the  Creator  of  the  mouth  must  eat  and  the  Creator  of  the 
lungs  must  cry  ;  the  same  applies  to  all  other  organs  of  our  body.  You  who 
study  this  treatise  of  mine,  consider  how  grossly  they  misunderstood  David's 
arguments.  Hear  now  what  its  true  meaning  is :  He  who  produces  a  vessel 
must  have  had  in  his  mind  an  idea  of  the  use  of  that  instrument,  otherwise 
he  could  not  have  produced  it.  If,  e.g.,  the  smith  had  not  formed  an  idea 
of  sewing  and  possessed  a  knowledge  of  it,  the  needle  would  not  have  had  the 
form  so  indispensable  for  sewing.  The  same  is  the  case  with  all  instruments. 
When  some  philosopher  thought  that  God,  whose  perception  is  purely  in- 
tellectual, has  no  knowledge  of  individual  things,  which  are  perceivable  only 
by  the  senses,  David  takes  his  argument  from  the  existence  of  the  senses,  and 
argues  thus  : — If  the  sense  of  sight  had  been  utterly  unknown  to  God,  how 
could  He  have  produced  that  organ  of  the  sense  of  sight  ?  Do  you  think 
that  it  was  by  chance  that  a  transparent  humour  was  formed,  and  then 
another  humour  with  certain  similar  properties,  and  besides  a  membrane 
which  by  accident  had  a  hole  covered  with  a  hardened  transparent  sub- 
stance ?    in  short,  considering  the  humour  of  the  eye.  its  membranes  and 


292  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

nerves,  with  their  well-known  functions,  and  their  adaptation  to  the  purpose 
of  sight,  can  any  intelligent  person  imagine  that  all  this  is  due  to  chance  ? 
Certainly  not ;  we  see  here  necessarily  design  in  nature,  as  has  been  shown 
by  all  physicians  and  philosophers ;  but  as  nature  is  not  an  intellectual  being, 
and  is  not  capable  of  governing  [the  universe],  as  has  been  accepted  by  all 
philosophers,  the  government  [of  the  universe],  which  shows  signs  of  design, 
originates,  according  to  the  philosophers,  in  an  intellectual  cause,  but  is 
according  to  our  view  the  result  of  the  action  of  an  intellectual  being,  that 
endows  everything  with  its  natural  properties.  If  this  intellect  were  in- 
capable of  perceiving  or  knowing  any  of  the  actions  of  earthly  beings,  how 
could  He  have  created,  or,  according  to  the  other  theory,  caused  to  emanate 
from  Himself,  properties  that  bring  about  those  actions  of  which  He  is  sup- 
posed to  have  no  knowledge  ?  David  correctly  calls  those  who  believe  in 
this  theory  brutes  and  fools.  He  then  proceeds  to  explain  that  the  error  is 
due  to  our  defective  understanding  ;  that  God  endowed  us  with  the  intellect 
which  is  the  means  of  our  comprehension,  and  which  on  account  of  its  in- 
sufficiency to  form  a  true  idea  of  God  has  become  the  source  of  great  doubts ; 
that  He  therefore  knows  what  our  defects  are,  and  how  worthless  the  doubts 
are  which  originate  in  our  faulty  reasoning.  The  Psalmist  therefore  says : 
"  He  who  teaches  man  knowledge,  the  Lord,  knoweth  the  thoughts  of  man 
that  they  are  vanity  "  {ibid.  xciv.  lo-ii). 

My  object  in  this  chapter  was  to  show  how  the  belief  of  the  ignorant,  that 
God  does  not  notice  the  affairs  of  man  because  they  are  uncertain  and  un- 
systematic, is  very  ancient.  Comp.  "  And  the  Israelites  uttered  things  that 
were  not  right  against  the  Lord  "  (2  Kings  xvii.  9).  In  reference  to  this 
passage  the  Midrash  says :  "  What  have  they  uttered  ?  This  Pillar  [i.e.,  God] 
does  not  see,  nor  hear,  nor  speak  "  ;  i.e.,  they  imagine  that  God  takes  no 
notice  of  earthly  affairs,  that  the  Prophets  received  of  God  neither  affirma- 
tive nor  negative  precepts ;  they  imagine  so,  simply  because  human  affairs 
are  not  arranged  as  every  person  would  think  it  desirable.  Seeing  that  these 
are  not  in  accordance  with  their  wish,  they  say,  "  The  Lord  does  not  see  us  " 
(Ezek.  viii.  12).  Zephaniah  (i.  12)  also  describes  those  ignorant  persons  "  who 
say  in  their  heart  the  Lord  will  not  do  good,  neither  will  he  do  evil."  I 
will  tell  you  my  own  opinion  as  regards  the  theory  that  God  knows  all 
things  on  earth,  but  I  will  before  state  some  propositions  which  are  generally 
adopted,  and  the  correctness  of  which  no  intelligent  person  can  dispute. 

CHAPTER  XX 

It  is  generally  agreed  upon  that  God  cannot  at  a  certain  time  acquire  know- 
ledge which  He  did  not  possess  previously  ;  it  is  further  impossible  that  His 
knowledge  should  include  any  plurality,  even  according  to  those  who  admit 
the  Divine  attributes.  As  these  things  have  been  fully  proved,  we,  who 
assert  the  teaching  of  the  Law,  believe  that  God's  knowledge  of  many  things 
does  not  imply  any  plurality  ;  His  knowledge  does  not  change  like  ours  when 
the  objects  of>His  knowledge  change.  Similarly  we  say  that  the  various 
events  are  known  to  Him  before  they  take  place  ;  He  constantly  knows  them, 
and  therefore  no  fresh  knowledge  is  acquired  by  Him.  E.g.,  He  knows  that 
a  certain  person  is  non-existent  at  present,  will  come  to  existence  at  a  certain 


DIVINE  PROVIDENCE  293 

time,  will  continue  to  exist  for  some  time,  and  will  then  cease  to  exiJt.  When 
this  person,  in  accordance  with  God's  foreknowledge  concerning  him,  comet 
into  existence,  God's  knowledge  is  not  increased;  it  contains  nothing  that 
it  did  not  contain  before,  but  something  has  taken  place  that  was  known  pre- 
viously exactly  as  it  has  taken  place.  This  theory  implies  that  God's  know- 
ledge extends  to  things  not  in  existence,  and  includes  also  the  infinite.  Wc 
nevertheless  accept  it,  and  contend  that  we  may  attribute  to  God  the  know- 
ledge of  a  thing  which  does  not  yet  exist,  but  the  existence  of  which  God 
foresees  and  is  able  to  eflFect.  But  that  which  never  exists  cannot  be  an  ob- 
ject of  His  knowledge  ;  just  as  our  knowledge  does  not  comprise  things  which 
we  consider  as  non-existing.  A  doubt  has  been  raised,  however,  whether 
His  knowledge  includes  the  infinite.  Some  thinkers  assume  that  knowledge 
has  the  species  for  its  object,  and  therefore  extends  at  the  same  time  to  all  iiuli- 
vidual  members  of  the  species.  This  view  is  taken  by  every  man  who  adheres 
to  a  revealed  religion  and  follows  the  dictates  of  reason.  Philosophers,  how- 
ever, have  decided  that  the  object  of  knowledge  cannot  be  a  non-existing 
thing,  and  that  it  cannot  comprise  that  which  is  infinite.  Since,  therefore, 
God's  knowledge  does  not  admit  of  any  increase,  it  is  impossible  that  He 
should  know  any  transient  thine.  He  only  knows  that  which  is  constant  and 
unchangeable.  Other  philosophers  raised  the  following  objection  :  God 
does  not  know  even  things  that  remain  constant ;  for  His  knowledge  would 
then  include  a  plurality  according  to  the  number  of  objects  known  ;  the 
knowledge  of  every  thing  being  distinguished  by  a  certain  peculiarity  of  the 
thing.     God  therefore  only  knows  His  own  essence. 

My  opinion  is  this :  the  cause  of  the  error  of  all  these  schools  is  their  belief 
that  God's  knowledge  is  like  ours ;  each  school  points  to  something  withheld 
from  our  knowledge,  and  either  assumes  that  the  same  must  be  the  case  in 
God's  knowledge,  or  at  least  finds  some  difficulty  hnw  to  explain  it.  \N'c 
must  blame  the  philosophers  in  this  respect  more  than  any  other  persons, 
because  they  demonstrated  that  there  is  no  plurality  in  God,  and  that  He 
has  no  attribute  that  is  not  identical  with  His  essence  ;  His  knowledge  and 
His  essence  are  one  and  the  same  thing  ;  they  likewise  demonstrated,  as  wc 
have  shown,  that  our  intellect  and  our  knowledge  are  insufficient  to  com- 
prehend the  true  idea  of  His  essence.  How  then  can  they  imagine  that  they 
comprehend  His  knowledge,  which  is  identical  with  His  essence  ;  seeing  that 
our  incapacity  to  comprehend  His  essence  prevents  us  from  understanding 
the  way  how  He  knows  objects  ?  for  Hi':  knowledge  is  not  of  the  same  kind 
as  ours,  but  totally  different  from  it  and  admitting  of  no  analogy.  .And  as 
there  is  an  Essence  of  independent  existence,  which  is,  as  the  philosophers 
call  it,  the  Cause  of  the  existence  of  all  things,  or,  as  wc  say.  the  Creator  of 
everything  that  exists  beside  Him,  so  wc  also  assume  that  this  Essence  knows 
everything,  that  nothing  whatever  of  all  that  exists  is  hidden  from  it,  and 
that  the  knowledge  attributed  to  this  essence  has  nothing  in  common  with 
our  knowledge,  just  as  that  essence  is  in  no  way  like  our  essence.  The  ho- 
monymity  of  the  term  "  knowledge  "  misled  people  ;  [they  forgnt  that] 
only  the  words  are  the  same,  but  the  things  designated  by  them  are  difTcrcnt  ; 
and  therefore  they  came  to  the  absurd  conclusion  that  that  which  is  required 
for  our  knowledge  is  also  required  for  God's  knowledge. 

Besides,  I  find  it  expressed  in  various  passages  of  Scripture  that  the  fact 


294  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

that  God  knows  things  while  in  a  state  of  possibility,  when  their  existence 
belongs  to  the  future,  does  not  change  the  nature  of  the  possible  in  any  way  ; 
that  nature  remains  unchanged  ;  and  the  knowledge  of  the  realization  of  one 
of  several  possibilities  does  not  yet  effect  that  realization.  This  is  likewise 
one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  concerning  which 
there  is  no  doubt  nor  any  dispute.  Otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  said, 
"  And  thou  shalt  make  a  battlement  for  thy  roof,"  etc.  (Deut.  xxii.  8),  or 
"  Lest  he  die  in  the  battle,  and  another  man  take  her  "  {ibid.  xx.  7).  The 
fact  that  laws  were  given  to  man,  both  affirmative  and  negative,  supports  the 
principle,  that  God's  knowledge  of  future  [and  possible]  events  does  not 
change  their  character.  The  great  doubt  that  presents  itself  to  our  mind 
is  the  result  of  the  insufficiency  of  our  intellect.  Consider  in  how  many  ways 
His  knowledge  is  distinguished  from  ours  according  to  all  the  teaching  of 
every  revealed  religion.  First,  His  knowledge  is  one,  and  yet  embraces  many 
different  kinds  of  objects.  Secondly,  it  is  applied  to  things  not  in  existence. 
Thirdly,  it  comprehends  the  infinite.  Fourthly,  it  remains  unchanged, 
though  it  comprises  the  knowledge  of  changeable  things ;  whilst  it  seems 
[in  reference  to  ourselves]  that  the  knowledge  of  a  thing  that  is  to  come  into 
existence  is  different  from  the  knowledge  of  the  thing  when  it  has  come  into 
existence  ;  because  there  is  the  additional  knowledge  of  its  transition  from 
a  state  of  potentiality  into  that  of  reality.  Fifthly,  according  to  the  teaching 
of  our  Law,  God's  knowledge  of  one  of  two  eventualities  does  not  determine 
it,  however  certain  that  knowledge  may  be  concerning  the  future  occurrence 
of  the  one  eventuality. — Now  I  wonder  what  our  knowledge  has  in  common 
with  God's  knowledge,  according  to  those  who  treat  God's  knowledge  as  an 
attribute.  Is  there  anything  else  common  to  both  besides  the  mere  name  ? 
According  to  our  theory  that  God's  knowledge  is  not  different  from  His 
essence,  there  is  an  essential  distinction  between  His  knowledge  and  ours, 
like  the  distinction  between  the  substance  of  the  heavens  and  that  of  the 
earth.  The  Prophets  have  clearly  expressed  this.  Comp.  "  For  my  thoughts 
are  not  your  thoughts,  neither  are  your  ways  my  ways,  saith  the  Lord.  For 
as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  my  ways  higher  than  your 
ways  "  (Isa.  Iv.  8-9).  In  short,  as  we  cannot  accurately  comprehend  His 
essence,  and  yet  we  know  that  His  existence  is  most  perfect,  free  from  all 
admixture  of  deficiency,  change,  or  passiveness,  so  we  have  no  correct  notion 
of  His  knowledge,  because  it  is  nothing  but  His  essence,  and  yet  we  are  con- 
vinced that  He  does  not  at  one  time  obtain  knowledge  which  He  had  not 
before ;  i.e.,  He  obtains  no  new  knowledge,  He  does  not  increase  it,  and  it 
is  not  finite  ;  nothing  of  all  existing  things  escapes  His  knowledge,  but  their 
nature  is  not  changed  thereby ;  that  which  is  possible  remains  possible. 
Every  argument  that  seems  to  contradict  any  of  these  statements  is  founded 
on  the  nature  of  our  knowledge,  that  has  only  the  name  in  common  with  God's 
knowledge.  The  same  applies  to  the  term  intention  ;  it  is  homonymously 
employed  to  designate  our  intention  towards  a  certain  thing,  and  the  inten- 
tion of  God.  The  term  "  management "  (Providence)  is  likewise  homony- 
mously used  of  our  management  of  a  certain  thing,  and  of  God's  manage- 
mcnl.  In  fact  management,  knowledge,  and  intention  are  not  the  same 
when  ascribed  to  us  and  when  ascribed  to  God.  When  these  three  terms 
are  taken  in  both  cases  in  the  same  sense,  great  difficulties  must  arise ;    but 


GOD'S  OMNISCIENCE  AND  MAN'S  ERE  I- Win      295 

when  it  is  noticed  that  there  is  a  Rrcat  difference  whether  a  thing  it  predi- 
cated of  God  or  of  us,  the  truth  will  become  clear.     The  diffcrctuc  I 
that  which  is  ascribed  to  God  and  that  which  is  ascribed  to  man  is  ex 
in  the  words  above  mentioned,  "  And  your  ways  arc  not  my  ways." 

CHAPTI'.R  XX I 

There  is  a  great  difference  between  the  knowledge  which  the  producer  of 
a  thing  possesses  concerning  it,  and  the  knowledge  which  other  pcrw)n» 
possess  concerning  the  same  thing.  Suppose  a  thing  is  produced  in  accord- 
ance with  the  knowledge  of  the  producer,  the  producer  was  then  guided  by 
his  knowledge  in  the  act  of  producing  the  thing.  Other  people,  however, 
who  examine  this  work  and  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  whole  of  it,  depend 
for  that  knowledge  on  the  work  itscU.  E.g.,  An  artisan  makes  a  box  in  which 
weights  move  with  the  running  of  the  water,  and  thus  indicate  how  many 
hours  have  passed  of  the  day  and  of  the  ni^'lit.  The  whole  quantity  of  the 
water  that  is  to  run  out,  the  different  ways  in  which  it  runs,  every  thread  that 
is  drawn,  and  every  little  ball  that  descends — all  this  is  fully  perceived  by 
him  who  makes  the  clock  ;  and  his  knowledge  is  not  the  result  of  observing 
the  movements  as  they  are  actually  going  on  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the 
movements  are  produced  in  accordance  with  his  knowledge.  But  another 
person  who  looks  at  that  instrument  will  receive  fresh  knowledge  at  every 
movement  he  perceives ;  the  longer  he  looks  on,  the  more  knowledge  docs 
he  acquire  ;  he  will  gradually  increase  his  knowledge  till  he  fully  under- 
stands the  machinery.  If  an  infinite  number  of  movements  were  assumed 
for  this  instrument,  he  would  never  be  able  to  complete  his  knowledge. 
Besides,  he  cannot  know  any  of  the  movements  before  they  take  place,  since 
he  only  knows  them  from  their  actual  occurrence.  The  same  is  the  case  with 
every  object,  and  its  relation  to  our  knowledge  and  God's  knowledge  of  it. 
Whatever  we  know  of  the  things  is  derived  from  observation  ;  on  that  account 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  know  that  which  will  take  place  in  future,  or  that 
which  is  infinite. 

Our  knowledge  is  acquired  and  increased  in  proportion  to  the  things  known 
by  us.  This  is  not  the  case  with  God.  His  knowledge  of  things  is  not  de- 
rived from  the  things  themselves ;  if  this  were  the  case,  there  would  be  change 
and  plurality  in  His  knowledge  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  things  arc  in  accord- 
ance with  His  eternal  knowledge,  which  has  established  their  actual  pro- 
perties, and  made  part  of  them  purely  spiritual,  another  part  m.itcrial  and 
constant  as  regards  its  individual  members,  a  third  part  material  and  change- 
able as  regards  the  individual  beings  according  to  eternal  and  constant  law*. 
Plurality,  acquisition,  and  change  in  His  knowledge  is  therefore  impoMiblc. 
He  fully  knows  His  unchangeable  essence,  and  has  thus  a  knowledge  of  all 
that  results  from  any  of  His  acts.  If  we  were  to  try  to  understand  in  what 
manner  this  is  done,  it  would  be  the  same  as  if  we  tried  to  be  the  same  as  God, 
and  to  make  our  knowledge  identical  with  His  knowledge.  Those  who  seek 
the  truth,  and  admit  what  is  true,  must  believe  that  nothing  is  hidden  from 
God  ;  that  everything  is  revealed  to  His  knowledge,  which  is  identical  with 
His  essence  ;  that  this  kind  of  knowledge  cannot  be  comprehended  by  u» ; 
for  if  we  knew  its  method,  we  would  possess  that  intellect  by  which  «uch 


296  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

knowledge  could  be  acquired.  Such  intellect  does  not  exist  except  in  God, 
and  is  at  the  same  time  His  essence.  Note  this  well,  for  I  think  that  this  is 
an  excellent  idea,  and  leads  to  correct  views ;  no  error  wiU  be  found  in  it ; 
no  dialectical  argument ;  it  does  not  lead  to  any  absurd  conclusion,  nor  to 
ascribing  any  defect  to  God.  These  sublime  and  profound  themes  admit 
of  no  proof  whatever,  neither  according  to  our  opinion  who  believe  in  the 
teaching  of  Scripture,  nor  according  to  the  philosophers  who  disagree  and 
are  much  divided  on  this  question.  In  all  questions  that  cannot  be  demon- 
strated, we  must  adopt  the  method  which  we  have  adopted  in  this  question 
about  God's  Omniscience.     Note  it. 


CHAPTER  XXn 

The  strange  and  wonderful  Book  of  Job  treats  of  the  same  subject  as  we  are 
discussing  ;  its  basis  is  a  fiction,  conceived  for  the  purpose  of  explaining 
the  different  opinions  which  people  hold  on  Divine  Providence.  You  know 
that  some  of  our  Sages  clearly  stated  Job  has  never  existed,  and  has  never 
been  created,  and  that  he  is  a  poetic  fiction.  Those  who  assume  that  he  has 
existed,  and  that  the  book  is  historical,  are  unable  to  determine  when  and 
where  Job  lived.  Some  of  our  Sages  say  that  he  lived  in  the  days  of  the 
Patriarchs  ;  others  hold  that  he  was  a  contemporary  of  Moses  ;  others  place 
him  in  the  days  of  David,  and  again  others  believe  that  he  was  one  of  those 
who  returned  from  the  Babylonian  exile.  This  difference  of  opinion  sup- 
ports the  assumption  that  he  has  never  existed  in  reality.  But  whether  he 
has  existed  or  not,  that  which  is  related  of  him  is  an  experience  of  frequent 
occurrence,  is  a  source  of  perplexity  to  all  thinkers,  and  has  suggested  the 
above-mentioned  opinions  on  God's  Omniscience  and  Providence.  This 
perplexity  is  caused  by  the  account  that  a  simple  and  perfect  person,  who  is 
upright  in  his  actions,  and  very  anxious  to  abstain  from  sin,  is  afflicted  by 
successive  misfortunes,  namely,  by  loss  of  property,  by  the  death  of  his  chil- 
dren, and  by  bodily  disease,  though  he  has  not  committed  any  sin.  Accord- 
ing to  both  theories,  viz.,  the  theory  that  Job  did  exist,  and  the  theory 
that  he  did  not  exist,  the  introduction  to  the  book  is  certainly  a  fiction ;  I 
mean  the  portion  which  relates  to  the  words  of  the  adversary,  the  words  of 
God  to  the  former,  and  the  handing  over  of  Job  to  him.  This  fiction,  how- 
ever, is  in  so  far  different  from  other  fictions  that  it  includes  profound  ideas 
and  great  mysteries,  removes  great  doubts,  and  reveals  the  most  important 
truths.  I  will  discuss  it  as  fully  as  possible  ;  and  I  will  also  tell  you  the 
words  of  our  Sages  that  suggested  to  me  the  explanation  of  this  great  poem. 
First,  consider  the  words  :  "  There  was  a  man  in  the  land  Uz."  The 
term  Uz  has  different  meanings ;  it  is  used  as  a  proper  noun.  Comp.  "  Uz, 
his  first-born  "  (Gen.  rxii.  21)  ;  it  is  also  imperative  of  the  verb  Uz,  "  to 
take  advice."  Comp.  uzu,  "  take  counsel  "  (Isa.  viii.  10).  The  name  Uz 
therefore  expresses  the  exhortation  to  consider  well  this  lesson,  study  it, 
grasp  its  ideas,  and  comprehend  them,  in  order  to  see  which  is  the  right  view. 
"  The  sons  of  God  then  came  to  present  themselves  before  the  Lord,  and  the 
adversary  came  also  among  them  and  in  their  number  "  (chap.  i.  6,  ii.  l). 
It  is  not  said  :  "  And  the  sons  of  God  and  the  adversary  came  to  present 
themselves  before  the  Lord  "  ;    this  sentence  would  have  implied  that  the 


JOB  AND  rilS  FRfl-NDS  297 

existence  of  all  that  came  was  of  the  same  kind  anJ  rank.     The  words  u»cd 
are  these  :    "  And  the  sons  of  God  came  to  present  themselves  before  the 
Lord,  and  the  adversary  came  also  among  them."     Such  a  phrase  is  only 
used  in  reference  to  one  that  comes  without  being  expected  or  invited ;   he 
only  comes  among  others  whose  coming  has  been  sought.     The  adversary  \a 
then  described  as  going  to  and  fro  on  the  earth,  and  walking  up  and  down 
thereon.     He  is  in  no  relation  to  the  beings  above,  and  has  no  place  among 
them.     For  this  reason  it  is  said,  "  from  going  to  and  fro  on  th(r  earth,  and 
walking  up  and  down  on  it,"  for  his  "  going  "  and  "  walking  "  can  only  take 
place  on  the  earth.     [Job],  the  simple  and  righteous  man,  is  given  and  handed 
over  to  the  adversary  ;  whatever  evils  and  misfortunes  befell  Job  as  regards 
his  property,  children,  and  health,  were  all  caused  by  this  adversary.     When 
this  idea  is  sufficiently  indicated,  the  author  begins  to  reflect  on  it ;   one 
opinion  Job  is  represented  to  hold,  whilst  other  opinions  are  defended  by  his 
friends.     I  will  further  on  expound  these  opinions  which  formed  the  sub- 
stance of  the  discussion  on  the  misfortunes  of  Job,  caused  by  tlie  adversary 
alone.     Job,  as  well  as  his  friends,  were  of  opinion  that  God  Himself  was  the 
direct  agent  of  what  happened,  and  that  the  adversary  was  not  the  inter- 
mediate cause.     It  is  remarkable  in  this  account  that  wisdom  is  not  ascribed 
to  Job.     The  text  does  not  say  he  was  an  intelligent,  wise,  or  clever  man  ; 
but  virtues  and  uprightness,  especially  in  actions,  are  ascribed  to  him.     If 
he  were  wise  he  would  not  have  any  doubt  about  the  cause  of  his  suffermg, 
as  will  be  shown  later  on.     Besides,  his  misfortunes  are  enumerated  m  the 
same  order  as  they  rank  in  man's  estimation.     There  are  some  who  arc  not 
perplexed  or  discouraged  by  loss  of  property,  thinking  little  of  it ;    but  are 
terrified  when  they  are  threatened  with  the  death  of  their  children  and  are 
killed  by  their  anxiety.    There  are  others  who  bear  without  shock  or  fainting 
even  the  loss  of  their  children,  but  no  one  endowed  with  sensation  is  able  to  bear 
bodily  pain.    We  generally  extol  God  in  words,  and  praise  Him  as  righteous 
and  benevolent,  when  we  prosper  and  are  happy,  or  when  the  grief  we  have 
to  bear  is  moderate.     But  [it  is  otherwise]  when  such  troubles  as  are  described 
in  Job  come  over  us.     Some  of  us  deny  God,  and  believe  that  there  is  no  rule 
in  the  Universe,  even  if  only  their  property  is  lost.    Others  retain  their  faith 
in  the  existence  of  justice  and  order,  even  when  suffering  from  loss  of  pro- 
perty whereas  loss  of  children  is  too  much  affliction  for  them.     Others  re- 
main firm  in  their  faith,  even  with  the  loss  of  their  children  ;  but  there  is  no 
one  who  can  patiently  bear  the  pain  that  reaches  his  own  person  ;   he  then 
murmurs  and  complains  of  injustice  either  in  his  heart  or  with  his  tongue^  ^^ 

Now  consider  that  the  phrase,  "  to  present  themselves  before  the  Lord, 
is  used  in  reference  to  the  sons  of  God,  both  the  first  and  the  second  times,  but 
in  reference  to  the  adversary,  who  appeared  on  either  occasion  among  them 
and  in  their  number,  this  phrase  is  not  used  the  first  time,  whilst  in  h.s  second 
appearance  "  the  adversary  also  came  among  them  to  present  himself  before 
the  Lord."  Consider  this,  and  see  how  very  extraordinary  it  is !- 1  hcsc 
ideas  presented  themselves  hke  an  inspiration  to  me.- 1  he  phrase,  to  pre- 
sent themselves  before  the  Lord,"  implies  that  they  are  beings  who  are 
forced  by  God's  command  to  do  what  He  desires.  This  may  be  inferred 
from  the  words  of  the  prophet  Zechariah  concerning  the  four  chariots  hat 
came  forth      He  says :  "  And  the  angel  answered  and  said  to  me,  These  lour 


298  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

winds  of  the  heavens  come  forth  from  presenting  themselves  before  the  Lord 
of  the  whole  earth  "  (Zech.  vi.  5).  It  is  clear  that  the  relation  of  tlie  sons  of 
God  to  the  Universe  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  the  adversary.  The  relation 
of  the  sons  of  God  is  more  constant  and  more  permanent.  The  adversary 
has  also  some  relation  to  the  Universe,  but  it  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  sons  of 
God.  It  is  also  remarkable  in  this  account  that  in  the  description  of  the 
adversary's  wandering  about  on  the  earth,  and  his  performing  certain  actions, 
it  is  distinctly  stated  that  he  has  no  power  over  the  soul ;  whilst  power  has 
been  given  to  him  over  all  earthly  affairs,  there  is  a  partition  between  him 
and  the  soul ;  he  has  not  received  power  over  the  soul.  This  is  expressed 
in  the  words,  "  But  keep  away  from  his  soul  "  (Job.  ii.  6).  I  have  already 
shown  you  the  homonymous  use  of  the  term  "  soul  "  {nefesh)  in  Hebrew 
(Part  I.,  chap.  xli.).  It  designates  that  element  in  man  that  survives  him  ; 
it  is  this  portion  over  which  the  adversary  has  no  power. — After  these  re- 
marks of  mine  listen  to  the  following  useful  instruction  given  by  our  Sages, 
who  in  truth  deserve  the  title  of  "  wise  men  "  ;  it  makes  clear  that  which 
appears  doubtful,  and  reveals  that  which  has  been  hidden,  and  discloses  most 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  Law.  They  said  in  the  Talmud  as  follows :  R.  Simeon, 
son  of  Lakish,  says:  "  The  adversary  (satan),  evil  inclination  (yezer  ^d-r^'), and 
the  angel  of  death,  are  one  and  the  same  being."  Here  we  find  all  that  has  been 
mentioned  by  us  in  such  a  clear  manner  that  no  intelligent  person  will  be  in 
doubt  about  it.  It  has  thus  been  shown  to  you  that  one  and  the  same  thing 
is  designated  by  these  three  different  terms,  and  that  actions  ascribed  to  these 
three  are  in  reality  the  actions  of  one  and  the  same  agent.  Again,  the  an- 
cient doctors  of  the  Talmud  said  :  "  The  adversary  goes  about  and  misleads, 
then  he  goes  up  and  accuses,  obtains  permission,  and  takes  the  soiJ."  You 
have  already  been  told  that  when  David  at  the  time  of  the  plague  was  shown 
the  angel  "  with  the  sword  drawn  in  his  hand  stretched  out  over  Jerusalem  " 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  17),  it  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  a  certain  idea  to 
him.  The  same  idea  was  also  expressed  in  the  vision  concerning  the  sins  of 
the  sons  of  Joshua,  the  high  priest,  by  the  words,  "  And  the  adversary  stood 
on  his  right  hand  to  accuse  him  "  (Zech.  iii.  1).  The  vision  then  reveals 
that  [the  adversary]  is  far  from  God,  and  continues  thus  :  "  The  Lord  will 
rebuke  thee,  O  adversary,  the  Lord  who  hath  chosen  Jerusalem  will  rebuke 
thee  "  (ibid.  ver.  2).  Balaam  saw  prophetically  the  same  vision  in  his  jour- 
ney, addressing  him  with  the  words,  "  Behold  I  have  come  forth  to  be  a  hin- 
drance to  thee  "  (Num.  xxii.  32).  The  Hebrew,  satan,  is  derived  from  the 
same  root  as  seteh,  "turn  away"  (Prov.  iv.  15);  it  implies  the  notion  of 
turning  and  moving  away  from  a  thing  ;  he  undoubtedly  turns  us  away 
from  the  way  of  truth,  and  leads  us  astray  in  the  way  of  error.  The  same 
idea  is  contained  in  the  passage,  "  And  the  imagination  of  the  heart  of  man 
is  evil  from  his  youth  "  (Gen.  viii.  21).  The  theory  of  the  good  and  the  evil 
inclinations  (y^zer  ha-tob,  ve-yezer  ha-ra^)  is  frequently  referred  to  in  our 
religion.  Our  Sages  also  say,  "  Serve  God  wath  your  good  and  your  evil 
inclinations."  (B.  T.  Rer.  57^.)  They  also  say  that  the  evil  inclination  we 
receive  at  our  birth  ;  for  "  at  the  door  sin  croucheth  "  (Gen.  iv.  7),  as  is 
distinctly  said  in  the  Law,  "  And  the  imagination  of  the  heart  of  man  is  evil 
from  his  youth  "  {ibid.  viii.  21).  The  good  inclination,  however,  comes  when 
the  mind  is  developed.     In  explaining  the  allegory  representing  the  body 


JOB  AND  HIS  FRIHNDS  2tyc) 

of  man  and  his  dillcrcnt  faculties,  our  Sa«cs  (H.  T.  Ned.  yzl>)  wid  •  "  Tl.r 
evil  inclination  is  called  a  great  king,  whilst  the  g<K.d  inclination  is  a  child 
poor  though  wise  "  (Ecclcs.  ix.  14).  Ml  these  sayings  of  our  Sage  arc  con- 
tained in  their  writings,  and  are  well  known.  According  to  our  Sages  the 
evil  inclmation,  the  advers.iry  (.^/^„),  and  the  anger[of  death],  arc  un- 
doubtedly Identical ;  and  the  adversary  being  called  "  angel,"  because  he  i. 
anaong  the  sons  of  God,  and  the  good  inclination  being  in  reality  an  angel 
It  IS  to  the  good  and  the  evil  inclinations  that  thev  refer  in  their  well-known 
vyords.  Every  person  is  accompanied  by  two  angels,  one  being  on  his  right 
side,  one  on  his  left."  In  the  Babylonian  Gemara  (Shabbath  I  U)b\  thev  »ay 
distinctly  of  the  two  angels  that  one  is  good  and  one  bad.  Sec  what  ex- 
traordinary ideas  this  passage  discloses,  and  how  manv  false  ideas  it  removes 
I  believe  that  I  have  fully  explained  the  idea  contained  in  the  account  of 
Job  ;  but  I  will  now  show  the  character  of  the  opinion  attributed  to  Job, 
and  of  the  opinions  attributed  to  his  friends,  and  support  mv  statement  by 
proofs  gathered  from  the  words  of  each  of  them.  We  need  not  take  notice 
of  the  remaining  passages  which  are  only  required  for  the  context,  as  has  been 
explained  to  you  in  the  beginning  of  this  treatise. 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

Assuming  the  first  part  of  the  history  of  Job  as  having  actually  taken  place, 
the  five,  viz.,  Job  and  his  friends,  agreed  that  the  misfortune  of  Job  was  known 
to  God,  and  that  it  was  God  that  caused  Job's  sufTering.  They  further  agree 
that  God  does  no  wrong,  and  that  no  injustice  can  be  ascribed  to  Him. 
You  will  find  these  ideas  frequently  repeated  in  the  words  of  Job.  When 
you  consider  the  words  of  the  five  who  take  part  in  the  discussion,  you  will 
easily  notice  that  things  said  by  one  of  them  are  also  uttered  by  the  rest. 
The  arguments  are  repeated,  mixed  up,  and  interrupted  by  Job's  description 
of  his  acute  pain  and  troubles,  which  had  come  upon  him  in  spite  of  his  strict 
righteousness,  and  by  an  account  of  his  charity,  humane  disposition,  and  good 
acts.  The  replies  of  the  friends  to  Job  are  likewise  interrupted  by  exhoru- 
tions  to  patience,  by  words  of  comfort,  and  other  speeches  tending  to  make 
him  forget  his  grief.  He  is  told  by  them  to  be  silent  ;  that  he  ought  not  to 
let  loose  the  bridle  of  his  tongue,  as  if  he  were  in  dispute  with  another  man  ; 
that  he  ought  silently  to  submit  to  the  judgments  of  God.  Job  replies  that 
the  intensity  of  his  pains  did  not  permit  him  to  bear  patiently,  to  collect  his 
thoughts  and  to  say  what  he  ought  to  say.  The  friends,  on  the  other  hand, 
contend  that  those  who  act  well  receive  reward,  and  those  who  act  wickedly 
are  punished.  When  a  wicked  and  rebellious  person  is  seen  in  prosperity, 
it  may  be  assumed  for  certain  that  a  change  will  take  place  ;  he  will  die,  or 
troubles  will  afflict  him  and  his  house.  When  wc  find  a  worshipper  of  God 
in  misfortune,  we  may  be  certain  that  God  will  heal  the  stroke  of  his  wound. 
This  idea  is  frequently  repeated  in  the  words  of  the  three  friends,  Eliphai, 
Bildad,  and  Zofar,  who  agree  in  this  opinion.  It  is,  however,  not  the  object 
of  this  chapter  to  describe  in  what  they  agree,  but  to  define  the  distinguish- 
ing characteristic  of  each  of  them,  and  to  elucidate  the  opinion  of  each  as 
regards  the  question  why  the  most  simple  and  upright  man  is  afflicted  with 
the  greatest  and  acutest  pain.     Job  found  in  this  fact  a  proof  that  the  right- 


300  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

eous  and  the  wicked  are  equal  before  God,  who  holds  all  mankind  in  con- 
tempt. Job  therefore  says  (ix.  22,  23)  :  "  This  is  one  thing,  therefore  I  said 
it,  He  destroyeth  the  perfect  and  the  wicked.  If  the  scourge  slay  suddenly, 
he  will  laugh  at  the  trial  of  the  innocent."  He  thus  declares  that  when  a 
scourge  comes  suddenly,  killing  and  destroying  all  it  meets,  God  laughs  at  the 
trial  of  the  innocent.  He  further  confirms  this  view  in  the  following  pas- 
sage :  "  One  dieth  in  his  full  strength,  being  wholly  at  ease  and  quiet.  His 
vessels  are  full  of  milk,  etc.  And  another  dieth  in  the  bitterness  of  his  soul, 
and  never  eateth  with  pleasure.  They  shall  lie  down  alike  in  the  dust,  and 
the  worms  shall  cover  them  "  {ibid.  xxi.  23-26).  In  a  similar  manner  he  shows 
the  good  condition  and  prosperity  of  wicked  people  ;  and  is  even  very  ex- 
plicit on  this  point.  He  speaks  thus :  "  Even  when  I  remember  I  am  afraid, 
and  trembling  taketh  hold  on  my  ilesh.  Wherefore  do  the  wicked  live, 
become  old,  yea,  are  mighty  in  power  ?  Their  seed  is  established  in  their 
sight  with  them,"  etc.  (ibid.  6-8).  Having  thus  described  their  prosperity, 
he  addresses  his  opponents,  and  says  to  them :  "  Granted  that  as  you  think, 
the  children  of  this  prosperous  atheist  will  perish  after  his  death,  and  their 
memory  will  be  blotted  out,  what  harm  will  the  fate  of  his  family  cause  him 
after  his  death  ?  For  what  pleasure  hath  he  in  his  house  after  him,  when 
the  number  of  his  months  is  cut  of?  in  the  midst  ?  "  (ibid.  21).  Job  then 
explains  that  there  is  no  hope  after  death,  so  that  the  cause  [of  the  misfortune 
of  the  righteous  man]  is  nothing  else  but  entire  neglect  on  the  part  of  God. 
He  is  therefore  surprised  that  God  has  not  abandoned  the  creation  of  man 
altogether  ;  and  that  after  having  created  him,  He  does  not  take  any  notice 
of  him.  He  says  in  his  surprise  :  "  Hast  thou  not  poured  me  out  as  milk,  and 
curdled  me  like  cheese  ?  "  etc.  (ibid.  x.  10,  seq.).  This  is  one  of  the  different 
views  held  by  some  thinkers  on  Providence.  Our  Sages  (B.  T.  Baba  B.  i6a) 
condemned  this  view  of  Job  as  mischievous,  and  expressed  their  feeling  in 
words  like  the  following  :  "  dust  should  have  filled  the  mouth  of  Job  "  ;  "  Job 
wished  to  upset  the  dish  "  ;  "  Job  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  "  ; 
"  He  commenced  to  blaspheme."  When,  however,  God  said  to  Eliphaz 
and  his  colleagues,  "  You  have  not  spoken  of  me  the  thing  that  is  right,  as 
my  servant  Job  hath  "  (xlii.  7),  our  Sages  assume  as  the  cause  of  this  rebuke, 
the  maxim  "  Man  is  not  punished  for  that  which  he  utters  in  his  pain  "  ; 
and  that  God  ignored  the  sin  of  Job  [in  his  utterances],  because  of  the  acute- 
ness  of  his  suffering.  But  this  explanation  does  not  agree  wdth  the  object 
of  the  whole  allegory.  The  words  of  God  are  justified,  as  I  wiU  show,  by 
the  fact  that  Job  abandoned  his  first  very  erroneous  opinion,  and  himself 
proved  that  it  was  an  error.  It  is  the  opinion  which  suggests  itself  as  plaus- 
ible at  first  thought,  especially  in  the  minds  of  those  who  meet  with  mishaps, 
well  knowing  that  they  have  not  merited  them  through  sins.  This  is  ad- 
mitted by  all,  and  therefore  this  opinion  was  assigned  to  Job.  But  he  is 
represented  to  hold  this  view  only  so  long  as  he  was  without  wisdom,  and 
knew  God  only  by  tradition,  in  the  same  manner  as  religious  people  generally 
know  Him.  As  soon  as  he  had  acquired  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  he  con- 
fessed that  there  is  undoubtedly  true  felicity  in  the  knowledge  of  God ;  it 
is  attained  by  all  who  acquire  that  knowledge,  and  no  earthly  'trouble  can 
disturb  it.  So  long  as  Job's  knowledge  of  God  was  based  on  tradition  and 
communication,  and  not  on  research,  he  believed  that  such  imaginary  good 


JOn  AND  HIS  FRIENDS  loi 

as  is  possessed  in  health,  riches,  and  children,  was  the  utmost  that  men  tan 
attain  ;  this  was  the  reason  why  he  was  in  perplexity,  and  why  he  uttered 
the  above-mentioned  opinions,  and  this  is  also  the  meaning  of  hit  words  : 
"  I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of  the  car ;  but  now  mine  eye  »ceih 
thee.  Wherefore  I  abhor  myself,  and  repent  because  of  dust  .r  '  '■  i  " 
(xlii.  5,  6)  ;    that  is  to  say,  he  abhorred  all  that  he  had  desired  ;  ,  4t»J 

that  he  was  sorry  that  he  had  been  in  dust  and  ashes ;  comp.  "  and  he  Mt 
down  among  the  ashes  "  (ii.  8).  On  account  of  this  last  utterance,  which 
implies  true  perception,  it  is  said  afterwards  in  reference  to  him,  "  for  you 
have  not  spoken  of  mc  the  thing  that  is  right,  as  my  servant  Job  hath." 

The  opinion  set  forth  by  Eliphaz  in  reference  to  Job's  suffering  is  likcwitc 
one  of  the  current  views  on  Providence.  He  holds  that  the  fate  of  Job  was 
in  accordance  with  strict  justice.  Job  was  guilty  of  sins  for  which  he  de- 
served his  fate.  Eliphaz  therefore  says  to  Job  :  "  Is  not  thy  wickcdnc** 
great,  and  thine  iniquities  infinite  ?  "  (xxii.  5).  He  then  points  out  to  him 
that  his  upright  actions  and  his  good  ways,  nn  which  he  relics,  need  not  be 
so  perfect  in  the  eyes  of  God  that  no  punishment  should  be  inflicted  on  him. 
"  Behold,  he  putteth  no  trust  in  his  servants ;  and  his  angels  he  chargcth 
with  folly  :  how  much  less  in  them  that  dwell  in  houses  of  clay."  etc.  (iv. 
17-18).  Eliphaz  never  abandoned  his  belief  that  the  fate  of  man  is  the 
result  of  justice,  that  we  do  not  know  all  our  shortcomings  for  which  we  are 
punished,  nor  the  way  how  we  incur  the  punishment  through  them. 

Bildad  the  Shuhite  defends  in  this  question  the  theory  of  reward  and  com- 
pensation. He  therefore  tells  Job  that  if  he  is  innocent  and  without  sin,  hii 
terrible  misfortunes  will  be  the  source  of  great  reward,  will  be  followed  by  the 
best  compensation,  and  will  prove  a  boon  to  him  as  the  cause  of  great  bli»» 
in  the  future  world.  This  idea  is  expressed  in  the  words :  "  If  thou  l>c  pure 
and  upright,  surely  now  lie  will  awake  for  thee,  and  make  the  habitation  of 
thy  righteousness  prosperous.  Though  thy  beginning  was  small,  yet  thy 
latter  end  will  greatly  increase  "  (viii.  6-8).  This  opinion  concerning  Pro- 
vidence is  widespread,  and  we  have  already  explained  it. 

Zofar  the  Naamathite  holds  that  the  Divine  Will  is  the  source  of  cver)'- 
thing  that  happens ;  no  further  cause  can  be  sought  for  His  actions,  and  11 
cannot  be  asked  why  He  has  done  this  and  why  He  has  not  done  that.  Fhat 
which  God  docs  can  therefore  not  be  explained  by  the  way  of  justice  or  the 
result  of  wisdom.  His  true  Essence  demands  that  He  docs  what  He  wUh  ; 
we  are  unable  to  fathom  the  depth  of  His  wisdom,  and  it  .s  the  bw  and  ru.c 
of  this  wisdom  that  whatever  He  does  is  done  because  U  is  H.s  will  and  for 
no  other  cause.  Zofar  therefore  says  to  Job  :  But  oh  that  God  wouKl 
speak,  and  open  his  lips  against  thee;  and  that  he  would  ^^ow  thee  the 
secrets  of  wisdom,  for  wisdom  hath  two  portions !  Know,  therefore,  ha 
God  exacteth  of  thee  less  than  thine  iniquity  ^^cscrvctlu  Canst  thou  bv 
searching  find  out  God  ?  canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  unto   perfec- 

''Tn'tllf later'  consider  well  how  the  Book  of  Job  discusse.  the  probletn. 
wh^ch   has    perplexed   many  people,  and  led  them  to  adopt  in  reference    » 
Divine  Providence  some  one  of  the  theories  wh.ch  I  have  eipla.ned  above  . 
aU  possible   different   theories    arc   mentioned    therein^       Ihe    pr. 
described  either  by  way  of  fiction  or  in  accord.,ncc  with  real  fact.  .. 


302  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

manifested  itself  in  a  man  famous  for  his  excellency  and  wisdom.  The  view 
ascribed  to  Job  is  the  theory  of  Aristotle.  Eliphaz  holds  the  opinion  taught 
in  Scripture,  Bildad's  opinion  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Mu'tazilah,  whilst 
Zofar  defends  the  theory  of  the  Asha'riyah.  These  were  the  ancient  views 
on  Providence  ;  later  on  a  new  theory  was  set  forth,  namely,  that  ascribed 
to  Elihu.  For  this  reason  he  is  placed  above  the  others,  and  described  as 
younger  in  years  but  greater  in  wisdom.  He  censures  Job  for  his  foolishly 
exalting  himself,  expressing  surprise  at  such  great  troubles  befalling  a  good 
man,  and  dwelling  on  the  praises  of  his  own  deeds.  He  also  tells  the  three 
friends  that  their  minds  have  been  weakened  by  great  age.  A  profound  and 
wonderful  discourse  then  follows.  Reflecting  on  his  words  we  may  at  first 
thought  be  surprised  to  find  that  he  does  not  add  anything  to  the  words  of 
Eliphaz,  Bildad,  and  Zofar  ;  and  that  he  only  repeats  their  ideas  in  other 
terms  and  more  explicitly.  For  he  likewise  censures  and  rebukes  Job,  attri- 
butes justice  to  God,  relates  His  wonders  in  nature,  and  holds  that  God  is 
not  affected  by  the  service  of  the  worshipper,  nor  by  the  disobedience  of  the 
rebellious.  All  this  has  already  been  said  by  His  colleagues.  But  after  due 
consideration  we  see  clearly  the  new  idea  introduced  by  Elihu,  which  is  the 
principal  object  of  his  speech,  an  idea  which  has  not  been  uttered  by  those 
who  spoke  before  him.  In  addition  to  this  he  mentions  also  other  things 
set  forth  by  the  previous  speakers,  in  the  same  manner  as  each  of  the  rest, 
viz.,  Job  and  his  three  friends,  repeat  what  the  others  have  said.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  repetition  is  to  conceal  the  opinion  peculiar  to  each  speaker,  and 
to  make  all  appear  in  the  eyes  of  the  ordinary  reader  to  utter  one  and  the 
same  view,  although  in  reality  this  is  not  the  case.  The  new  idea,  which  is 
peculiar  to  EHhu  and  has  not  been  mentioned  by  the  others,  is  contained  in 
his  metaphor  of  the  angel's  intercession.  It  is  a  frequent  occurrence,  he 
says,  that  a  man  becomes  ill,  approaches  the  gates  of  death,  and  is  already 
given  up  by  his  neighbours.  If  then  an  angel,  of  any  kind  whatever,  inter- 
cedes on  his  behalf  and  prays  for  him,  the  intercession  and  prayers  are 
accepted ;  the  patient  rises  from  his  illness,  is  saved,  and  returns  to  good 
health.  This  result  is  not  always  obtained  ;  intercession  and  deliverance 
do  not  always  follow  each  other  ;  it  happens  only  twice,  or  three  times. 
Elihu  therefore  says :  "  If  there  be  an  angel  with  him,  an  interpreter,  one 
among  a  thousand,  to  show  unto  man  his  uprightness,"  etc.  (xxxiii.  29).  He 
then  describes  man's  condition  when  convalescent  and  the  rejoicing  at  his 
recovery,  and  continues  thus  :  "  Lo,  all  these  things  worketh  God  twice, 
three  times  with  man  "  {ibid.  29).  This  idea  occurs  only  in  the  words  of 
EHhu.  His  description  of  the  method  of  prophecy  in  preceding  verses  is 
likewise  new.  He  says :  "  Surely  God  speaketh  in  one  way,  yea  in  two  ways, 
yet  man  perceiveth  it  not.  In  a  dream,  in  a  vision  of  the  night,  when  deep 
sleep  falleth  upon  man,  in  slumberings  upon  the  bed  "  {ibid.  14,  1 5).  He 
afterwards  supports  and  illustrates  his  theory  by  a  description  of  many 
natural  phenomena,  such  as  thunder,  lightning,  rain,  and  winds  ;  with  these 
are  mixed  up  accounts  of  various  incidents  of  life,  e.g.,  an  account  of  pestil- 
ence contained  in  the  following  passage  :  "  In  a  moment  they  die,  and  at 
midnight ;  the  people  become  tumultuous  and  pass  away "  (ixxiv.  20). 
Great  wars  are  described  in  the  following  verse  :  "  He  breaketh  in  pieces 
mighty  men  without  number,  and  setteth  others  in  their  stead  "  {ibid.  24). 


JOB  AND  JUS  i-Rn-wns  301 

There  arc  many  more  passages  of  this  kind.  In  a  similar  manner  the  Revela- 
tion that  reached  Job  (chap,  xxxviii.,  chap,  xli.),  and  explained  to  him  the 
error  of  his  whole  belief,  constantly  describes  natural  objccu,  and  nothing 
else  ;  it  describes  the  elements,  meteorological  phenomena,  and  pcculiaritic* 
of  various  kinds  of  living  beings.  The  sky,  the  heavens,  Orion  and  Pleiadc* 
are  only  mentioned  in  reference  to  their  influence  upon  our  atmosphere,  u* 
that  Job's  attention  is  in  this  prophecy  only  called  to  things  below  the  lunar 
sphere.  Elihu  likewise  derives  instruction  from  the  nature  of  various  kindi 
of  animals.  Thus  he  says  :  "  He  teacheth  us  through  the  beasts  of  the  earth, 
and  maketh  us  wise  through  the  fowls  of  heaven"  (xxxv.  ii).  He  dwells 
longest  on  the  nature  of  the  Leviathan,  which  possesses  a  combination  of 
bodily  peculiarities  found  separate  in  different  animals,  in  those  that  walk, 
those  that  swim,  and  those  that  fly.  The  description  of  all  these  tin-  . 
serves  to  impress  on  our  minds  that  we  are  unable  to  comprehend  how  ti. 
transient  creatures  come  into  existence,  or  to  imagine  how  their  natural 
properties  commenced  to  exist,  and  that  these  are  not  like  the  things  which 
we  are  able  to  produce.  Much  less  can  we  compare  tin-  manner  in  which 
God  rules  and  manages  His  creatures  with  the  manner  in  which  we  rule 
and  manage  certain  beings.  We  must  content  ourselves  with  this,  and  be- 
lieve that  nothing  is  hidden  from  God,  as  Elihu  says :  "  For  his  eyes  arc 
upon  the  ways  of  man,  and  he  secth  all  his  goings.  There  is  no  darkness  nor 
shadow  of  death,  where  the  workers  of  iniquity  may  hide  themselves  " 
(xxxiv.  21,  22).  But  the  term  management,  when  applied  to  God,  has  not 
the  same  meaning  which  it  has  when  applied  to  us  ;  and  when  we  say  that 
He  rules  His  creatures  we  do  not  mean  that  He  does  the  same  as  we  do  wh<n 
we  rule  over  other  beings.  The  term  "  rule  "  has  not  the  same  definition 
in  both  cases ;  it  signifies  two  different  notions,  which  have  nothing  in 
common  but  the  name.  In  the  same  manner,  as  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween works  of  nature  and  productions  of  human  handicraft,  so  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  God's  rule,  providence,'and  intention  in  reference  to  all  natural 
forces,  and  our  rule,  providence,  and  intention  in  reference  to  things  which 
are  the  objects  of  our  rule,  providence,  and  intention.  This  lesson  is  the 
principal  object  of  the  whole  Book  of  Job  ;  it  lays  down  this  principle  of 
faith,  and  recommends  us  to  derive  a  proof  from  nature,  that  wc  should 
not  fall  into  the  error  of  imagining  His  knowledge  to  be  similar  to  ours, 
or  His  intention,  providence,  and  rule  similar  to  oun.  U  hen  we 
know  this  we  shall  find  everything  that  may  befall  us  easy  to  bear  ;  mis- 
hap will  create  no  doubts  in  our  hearts  concerning  God,  whether  He  knows 
our  affairs  or  not,  whether  He  provides  for  us  or  abandons  us.  On  the 
contrary,  our  fate  will  increase  our  love  of  God  ;  as  is  said  in  the  end  of  this 
prophecy  :  "  Therefore  I  abhor  myself  and  repent  concerning  the  dust  and 
ashes  "  (xlii.  6)  ;  and  as  our  Sages  say  :  "  The  pious  do  everything  out  of 
love,  and  rejoice  in  their  own  afflictions."  (B.  T.  Shabb.  SHh.)  If  you  pay  to 
my  words  the  attention  which  this  treatise  demands,  and  examine  all  that  u 
said  in  the  Book  of  Job,  all  will  be  clear  to  you,  and  you  will  find  that  I  have 
grasped  and  taken  hold  of  the  whole  subject  ;  nothing  has  been  left  un- 
noticed, except  such  portions  as  are  only  introduced  because  of  the  context 
and  the  whole  plan  of  the  allegory.  I  have  cxplaineil  this  method  vvvral 
times  in  the  course  of  this  treatise. 


304  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

The  doctrine  of  trials  is  open  to  great  objections ;  it  is  in  fact  more  exposed 
to  objections  than  any  other  thing  taught  in  Scripture.  It  is  mentioned  in 
Scripture  six  times,  as  I  will  show  in  this  chapter.  People  have  generally 
the  notion  that  trials  consist  in  afflictions  and  mishaps  sent  by  God  to  man, 
not  as  punishments  for  past  sins,  but  as  giving  opportunity  for  great  reward. 
This  principle  is  not  mentioned  in  Scripture  in  plain  language,  and  it  is  only 
in  one  of  the  six  places  referred  to  that  the  literal  meaning  conveys  this 
notion.  I  will  explain  the  meaning  of  that  passage  later  on.  The  principle 
taught  in  Scripture  is  exactly  the  reverse ;  for  it  is  said  :  "  He  is  a  God  of 
faithfulness,  and  there  is  no  iniquity  in  him  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  4). 

The  teaching  of  our  Sages,  although  some  of  them  approve  this  general 
belief  [concerning  trials],  is  on  the  whole  against  it.  For  they  sav,  "  There 
is  no  death  without  sin,  and  no  affliction  without  transgression."  (See  p.  285.) 
Every  intelligent  religious  person  should  have  this  faith,  and  should  not  ascribe 
any  wrong  to  God,  who  is  far  from  it ;  he  must  not  assume  that  a  person 
is  innocent  and  perfect  and  does  not  deserve  what  has  befallen  him.  The 
trials  mentioned  in  Scripture  in  the  [six]  passages-,  seem  to  have  been  tests 
and  experiments  by  which  God  desired  to  learn  the  intensity  of  the  faith 
and  the  devotion  of  a  man  or  a  nation.  [If  this  were  the  case]  it  would  be 
very  difficult  to  comprehend  the  object  of  the  trials,  and  yet  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac  seems  to  be  a  case  of  this  kind,  as  none  witnessed  it,  but  God  and  the 
two  concerned  [Abraham  and  Isaac].  Thus  God  says  to  Abraham,  "  For 
now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,"  etc.  (Gen.  xxii.  12).  In  another  passage 
it  is  said  :  "  For  the  Lord  your  God  proveth  you  to  know  whether  ye  love," 
etc.  (Deut.  xili.  4).  Again,  "And  to  prove  thee  to  know  what  was  in  thine 
heart,"  etc.  {ibid.  viii.  2).     I  will  now  remove  all  the  difficulties. 

The  sole  object  of  all  the  trials  mentioned  in  Scripture  is  to  teach  man 
what  he  ought  to  do  or  believe  ;  so  that  the  event  which  forms  the  actual 
trial  is  not  the  end  desired  ;  it  is  but  an  example  for  our  instruction  and 
guidance.  Hence  the  words  "  to  know  (la-da'at)  whether  ye  love,"  etc., 
do  not  mean  that  God  desires  to  know  whether  they  loved  God  ;  for  He 
already  knows  it ;  but  la-da'at,  "  to  know,"  has  here  the  same  meaning  as 
in  the  phrase  "  to  know  (la-da'at)  that  I  am  the  Lord  that  sanctifieth  you  " 
(Exod.  xxxi.  13),  i.e.,  that  all  nations  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  who 
sanctifieth  you.  In  a  similar  manner  Scripture  says : — If  a  man  should  rise, 
pretend  to  be  a  prophet,  and  show  you  his  signs  by  which  he  desired  to  con- 
vince you  that  his  words  are  true,  know  that  God  intends  thereby  to  prove 
to  the  nations  how  firmly  you  believe  in  the  truth  of  God's  word,  and  how 
well  you  have  comprehended  the  true  Essence  of  God  ;  that  you  cannot  be 
misled  by  any  tempter  to  corrupt  your  faith  in  God.  Your  religion  will 
then  aflFord  a  guidance  to  all  who  seek  the  truth,  and  of  all  religions  man  will 
choose  that  which  is  so  firmly  established  that  it  is  not  shaken  by  the  per- 
formance of  a  miracle.  For  a  miracle  cannot  prove  that  which  is  impossible ; 
it  is  useful  only  as  a  confirmation  of  that  which  is  possible,  as  we  have  ex- 
plained in  our  Mishnch-torah.     (Yesodc  ha-torah  vii.  f.  viii.  3.) 

Having  shown  that  the  term  "  to  know"  means  "that  all  people  may  know," 
we  apply  this  interpretation  to  the  following  words  said  in  reference  to  the 


THE  OBJECT  ()}■    I  RIALS  305 

manna  :    "  To   humble    thee,  and    to   prove    iliee,  to  kiu)W    what   wa»   in 
thine  heart,  whether  thou  wouldst  keep  his  commandments,  or  not  "  (I)cul. 
viii.  2).     All  nations  shall  know,  it  shall  be  published  throughout  the  world, 
that  those  who  devote  themselves  to  the  service  of  God  arc  supported  beyond 
their  expectation.     In  the  same  sense  it  was  said  when  the  manna  com- 
menced to  come  down,  "  that  I  may  prove  them  whether  they  will  walk  in 
my  law  or  no  "  (Exod.  xvi.  4)  ;   i.e.,  let  every  one  who  desires  try  and  see 
whether  it  is  useful  and  sufficient  to  devote  himself  to  the  service  of  God. 
It  is,  however,  said  a  third  time  in  reference  to  the  manna  :   "  Who  fed  thee 
in  the  wilderness  with  manna,  which  thy  fathers  knew  not,  that   he  mi^'ht 
humble  thee,  and  that  Ijaonight  prove  thee,  to  do  thee  good  at  thy  latter 
end  "  (Deut.  viii.  16).     Tnis  might  induce  us  to  think  that  God  sometimes 
afflicts  man  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  his  reward.     Hut  in  truth  this  is 
not  the  case.     We  may  rather  assume  one  of  the  two  following  explana- 
tions ;   either  this  passage  expresses  the  same  idea  as  is  expressed  in  the  first 
and  second   passages,  viz.,  to  show  [to  all  people]  whether  faith   in   God 
is  sufficient  to  secure  man's  maintenance  and  his  relief  from  care  and  trouble, 
or   not.      Or   the    Hebrew  term  le-nassoteka  means  "  to  accustom  thcc  "  ; 
the  word  is  used  in  this  sense  in  the  following  passage  :   "  She  has  not  accus- 
tomed (nisseta)  the  sole  of  her  foot  to  set  it  upon  the  ground  "  {ibid,  xxviii. 
56).     The  meaning  of  the  above  passage  would  then  be  :    "  God  has  first 
trained  you  in  the  hardships  of  the  wilderness,  in  order  to  increase  your 
welfare  when  you  enter  the  land  of  Canaan."     It  is  indeed  a  fact  that  the 
transition  from  trouble  to  ease  gives  more  pleasure  than  continual  case.     It 
is  also  known  that  the  Israelites  would  not  have  been  able  to  conquer  the 
land   and   fight  with  its  inhabitants,  if  they  had  not  previously  undergone 
the  trouble  and  hardship  of  the  wilderness.     Scripture  says  in  reference  to 
this  :    "  For  God  said.  Lest  peradventure  the  people  repent  when  tlicy  sec 
war,  and  they  return  to  Egypt.     But  God  led  the  people  about,  through  the 
way  of  the  wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea  ;    and  the  children  of  Israel  went  up 
harnessed  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt"  (Exod.  xiii.  17,  18).     Ease  destroys 
bravery,  whilst  trouble  and  care  for  food  create  strength  ;  and  this  was  [also 
for  the  Israelites]  the  good  that  ultimately  came  out  of  their  wandering*  in 
the  wilderness.     The  passage,  "  For  God  is  come  to  prove  you,  and  that  his 
fear  may  be  before  your  faces,  that  ye  sin  not "  {ibid.  xx.  20),  expresses  the 
same  idea  as  is  expressed  in  Deuteronomy  (xiii.  4)  in  reference  to  a  person 
who  prophesies  in  the  name  of  idols,  namely  in  the  words :  "For  the  I>ord 
your  God  froveth  you  to  know  whether  ye  love  the  Lord."     We  have  already 
explained  the  meaning  of  the  latter  passage.     In  the  same  sense  Moses  said 
to  the  Israehtes  when  thev  stood  round  Mount  Sinai :   "  Do  not  fear ;   the 
object  of   this  great  sight  which  you  perceived  is  that  you  should  sec  the 
truth  with  your  own  eyes.     When  the  Lord  your  God,  in  order  to  show  your 
faithfulness  to  Him,  will  prove  you  by  a  false  prophet,  who  wiU  tell  you  the 
reverse  of  what  you  have  heard,  you  will  remain  firm  and  your  steps  will  not 
slide.     If  I  had  come  as  a  messenger  as  you  desired,  and  had  told  you  that 
which  had  been  said  unto  me  and  which  you  had  not  heard,  you  would  per- 
haps consider  as  true  what  another  might  tell  you  in  opposition  to  that  which 
you  heard  from  me.     But  it  is  different  now,  as  you  have  heard  U  in  the 
midst  of  the  great  sight," 


306  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

The  account  of  Abraham  our  father  binding  his  son,  includes  two  great 
ideas  or  principles  of  our  faith.  First,  it  shows  us  the  extent  and  limit  of 
the  fear  of  God.  Abraham  is  commanded  to  perform  a  certain  act,  which 
is  not  equalled  by  any  surrender  of  property  or  by  any  sacrifice  of  life,  for  it 
surpasses  everything  that  can  be  done,  and  belongs  to  the  class  of  actions 
which  are  believed  to  be  contrary  to  human  feelings.  He  had  been  without 
child,  and  had  been  longing  for  a  child  ;  he  had  great  riches,  and  was  ex- 
pecting that  a  nation  should  spring  from  his  seed.  After  all  hope  of  a  son 
had  already  been  given  up,  a  son  was  born  unto  him.  How  great  must  have 
been  his  delight  in  the  child  !  how  intensely  must  he  have  loved  him  !  And 
yet  because  he  feared  God,  and  loved  to  do  what  God  commanded,  he 
thought  little  of  that  beloved  chUd,  and  set  aside  all  his  hopes  concerning 
him,  and  consented  to  kill  him  after  a  journey  of  three  days.  If  the  act  by 
which  he  showed  his  readiness  to  kill  his  son  had  taken  place  immediately 
when  he  received  the  commandment,  it  might  have  been  the  result  of  con- 
fusion and  not  of  consideration.  But  the  fact  that  he  performed  it  three 
days  after  he  had  received  the  commandment,  proves  the  presence  of  thought, 
proper  consideration,  and  careful  examination  of  what  is  due  to  the  Divine 
command  and  what  is  in  accordance  with  the  love  and  fear  of  God.  There 
is  no  necessity  to  look  for  the  presence  of  any  other  idea  or  of  anything  that 
might  have  affected  his  emotions.  For  Abraham  did  not  hasten  to  kill  Isaac 
out  of  fear  that  God  might  slay  him  or  make  him  poor,  but  solely  because  it 
is  man's  duty  to  love  and  to  fear  God,  even  without  hope  of  reward  or  fear 
of  punishment.  We  have  repeatedly  explained  this.  The  angel,  therefore, 
says  to  him,  "  For  now  I  know,"  etc.  (ibid.  ver.  12),  that  is,  from  this  action, 
for  which  you  deserve  to  be  truly  called  a  God-fearing  man,  all  people  shall 
learn  how  far  we  must  go  in  the  fear  of  God.  This  idea  is  confirmed  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  one  sole  thing,  fear  of  God,  is  the  object  of 
the  whole  Law  with  its  affirmative  and  negative  precepts,  its  promises  and 
its  historical  examples,  for  it  is  said,  "  If  thou  wilt  not  observe  to  do  all  the 
words  of  this  Law  that  are  written  in  this  book,  that  thou  mayest  fear  this 
glorious  and  fearful  name,  the  Lord  thy  God,"  etc.  (Deut.  xxviii.  58).  This 
is  one  of  the  two  purposes  of  the  'akedah  (sacrifice  or  binding  of  Isaac). 

The  second  purpose  is  to  show  how  the  prophets  believed  in  the  truth  of 
that  which  came  to  them  from  God  by  way  of  inspiration.  We  shall  not 
think  that  what  the  prophets  heard  or  saw  in  allegorical  figures  may  at  times 
have  included  incorrect  or  doubtful  elements,  since  the  Divine  communi- 
cation was  made  to  them,  as  we  have  shown,  in  a  dream  or  a  vision  and  through 
the  imaginative  faculty.  Scripture  thus  tells  us  that  whatever  the  Prophet 
perceives  in  a  prophetic  vision,  he  considers  as  true  and  correct  and  not  open 
to  any  doubt ;  it  is  in  his  eyes  like  all  other  things  perceived  by  the  senses 
or  by  the  intellect.  This  is  proved  by  the  consent  of  Abraham  to  slay  "his 
only  son  whom  he  loved,"  as  he  was  commanded,  although  the  command- 
ment was  received  in  a  dream  or  a  vision.  If  the  Prophets  had  any  doubt 
or  suspicion  as  regards  the  truth  of  what  they  saw  in  a  prophetic  dream  or 
perceived  in  a  prophetic  vision,  they  would  not  have  consented  to  do  what 
is  unnatural,  and  Abraham  would  not  have  found  in  his  soul  strength  enough 
to  perform  that  act,  if  he  had  any  doubt  [as  regards  the  truth  of  the  com- 
mandment].    It  was  just  the  right  thing  that  this  lesson  derived  from  the 


GOD'S    WORK    NOT    PURPOSHLESS  307 

'akedah  ("  sacrifice  ")  should  be  taught  through  Abraham  and  a  man  like 
Isaac.  For  Abraham  was  the  first  to  teach  the  Unity  of  God,  to  ntabliih 
the  faith  [in  Him],  to  cause  it  to  remain  among  coming  generation*,  and  to 
win  his  fellow-men  for  his  doctrine  ;  as  Scripture  says  of  him :  "  I  know 
him,  that  he  will  command,"  etc.  (Gen.  viii.  19).  In  the  same  manner  at 
he  was  followed  by  others  in  his  true  and  valuable  opinions  when  they  were 
heard  from  him,  so  also  the  principles  should  be  accepted  that  may  be  Icarni 
from  his  actions ;  especially  from  the  act  by  which  he  confirmed  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  truth  of  prophecy,  and  showed  how  far  we  must  go  in  the  fear 
and  the  love  of  God. 

This  is  the  way  how  we  have  to  understand  the  accounts  of  trials  ;  we 
must  not  think  that  God  desires  to  examine  us  and  to  try  us  in  order  to  know 
what  He  did  not  know  before.  Far  is  this  from  Ilim  ;  He  is  far  above  tli.it 
which  ignorant  and  foolish  people  imagine  concerning  Ilim,  in  the  evil  of 
their  thoughts.      Note  this. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

[Man's]  actions  are  divided  as  regards  their  object  into  four  classes  ;  they 
are  either  purposeless,  unimportant,  in  vain,  or  good.  An  action  is  m  vain  if  the 
object  which  is  sought  by  it  is  not  obtained  on  account  of  some  obstacles. 
Thus  people  frequently  use  the  phrase  "  thou  hast  worked  in  vain  "  in  re- 
ference to  a  person  who  looks  out  for  some  one  and  cannot  find  him  ;  or  who 
undertakes  the  troubles  of  a  journey  for  his  business  without  profit.  Our 
endeavours  and  exertions  are  in  vain  as  regards  a  patient  that  is  not  cured. 
This  applies  to  all  actions  which  are  intended  for  certain  purposes  that  arc 
not  realized.  Purposeless  are  such  actions,  which  serve  no  purpose  at  all. 
Some  persons,  e.g.,  do  something  with  their  hands  whilst  thinking  of  some- 
thing else.  The  actions  of  the  insane  and  confused  are  of  this  kind.  Un- 
important are  such  actions  by  which  a  trivial  object  is  sought,  an  object  that 
is  not  necessary  and  is  not  of  great  use.  This  is  the  case  when  a  person 
dances  without  seeking  to  benefit  his  digestion  by  that  exercise,  or  performs 
certain  actions  for  the  purpose  of  causing  laughter.  Such  actions  arc  cer- 
tainly mere  pastimes.  Whether  an  action  belongs  to  this  class  or  not  depends 
on  the  intention  of  those  who  perform  it,  and  on  the  degree  of  their  per- 
fection. For  many  things  are  necessary  or  ven/  useful  in  the  opinion  of  one 
person  and  superfluous  in  the  opinion  of  another.  E.g.,  bodily  exercise,  in 
its  different  kinds,  is  necessary  for  the  proper  preservation  of  health  in  the 
opinion  of  him  who  understands  the  science  of  medicine  ;  writing  is  con- 
sidered as  very  useful  by  scholars.  When  people  take  exercise  by  playing 
with  the  baU,  wrestling,  stretching  out  the  hands  or  keeping  back  the  breath- 
ing, or  do  certain  things  as  preparation  for  writing,  shape  the  pen  and  get 
the  paper  ready,  such  actions  are  mere  pastimes  in  the  eyes  of  the  ignorant, 
but  the  wise  do  not  consider  them  as  unimportant.  Useful  "^  such  actions 
as  serve  a  proper  purpose  ;  being  either  necessary  or  useful  f.^r  the  purpose 
which  is  to  be  attained.  This  division  [of  man's  actions]  is  as  I  believe,  not 
open  to  any  objection.  For  every  action  is  either  intended  for  a  certain 
purpose  or  is  not  intended  ;  and  if  intended  for  a  certain  purpose,  that  pur- 


^.o8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 


o 


pose  may  be  important  or  unimportant,  is  sometimes  attained  and  some- 
times missed.     This  division  is  therefore  complete. 

After  having  explained  this  division,  I  contend  that  no  intelligent  person 
can  assume  that  any  of  the  actions  of  God  can  be  in  vain,  purposeless,  or  un- 
important. According  to  our  view  and  the  view  of  all  that  follow  the  Law 
of  Moses,  all  actions  of  God  are  "  exceedingly  good."  Thus  Scripture  says, 
"  And  God  saw  everything  that  he  had  made,  and  behold,  it  was  very  good  " 
(Gen.  i.  31).  And  that  which  God  made  for  a  certain  thing  is  necessary  or 
[at  least]  very  useful  for  the  existence  of  that  thing.  Thus  food  is  necessary 
for  the  existence  of  living  beings ;  the  possession  of  eyes  is  very  useful  to  man 
during  his  life,  although  food  only  serves  to  sustain  living  beings  a  certain 
time,  and  the  senses  are  only  intended  to  procure  to  animals  the  advantages 
of  sensation.  The  philosophers  likewise  assume  that  in  Nature  there  is 
nothing  in  vain,  so  that  everything  that  is  not  the  product  of  human  industry 
serves  a  certain  purpose,  which  may  be  known  or  unknown  to  us.  There  are 
thinkers  that  assume  that  God  does  not  create  one  thing  for  the  sake  of 
another,  that  existing  things  are  not  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect ;  that  they  are  all  the  direct  result  of  the  Will  of  God,  and  do  not 
serve  any  purpose.  According  to  this  opinion  we  cannot  ask  why  has  He 
made  this  and  not  that ;  for  He  does  what  pleases  Him,  without  following  a 
fixed  system.  Those  who  defend  this  theory  must  consider  the  actions  of 
God  as  purposeless,  and  even  as  inferior  to  purposeless  actions ;  for  when 
we  perform  purposeless  actions,  our  attention  is  engaged  by  other  things  and 
we  do  not  know  what  we  are  doing  ;  but  God,  according  to  these  theorists, 
knows  what  He  is  doing,  and  knowingly  does  it  for  no  purpose  or  use  what- 
ever. The  absurdity  of  assuming  that  some  of  God's  actions  are  trivial,  is  appar- 
ent even  at  first  sight,  and  no  notice  need  be  taken  of  the  nonsensical  idea 
that  monkeys  were  created  for  our  pastime.  Such  opinions  originate  only  in 
man's  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  transient  beings,  and  in  his  overlooking  the 
principle  that  it  was  intended  by  the  Creator  to  produce  in  its  present  form 
everything  whose  existence  is  possible  ;  a  different  form  was  not  decreed  by 
the  Divine  Wisdom,  and  the  existence  [of  objects  of  a  different  form]  is  there- 
fore impossible,  because  the  existence  of  all  things  depends  on  the  decree  of 
God's  wisdom.  Those  who  hold  that  God's  works  serve  no  purpose  what- 
ever believe  that  an  examination  of  the  totality  of  existing  things  compels 
them  to  adopt  this  theory.  They  ask  what  is  the  purpose  of  the  whole 
Universe  ?  they  necessarily  answer,  like  all  those  who  believe  in  the  Cre- 
ation, that  it  was  created  because  God  willed  it  so,  and  for  no  other  purpose. 
The  same  answer  they  apply  to  all  parts  of  the  Universe,  and  do  not  admit 
that  the  hole  in  the  uvea  and  the  transparency  of  the  cornea  are  intended 
for  the  purpose  of  allowing  the  spiritus  visus  to  pass  and  to  perceive  certain 
objects  ;  they  do  not  assume  that  these  circumstances  are  causes  for  the 
sight ;  the  hole  in  the  uvea  and  the  transparent  matter  over  it  are  not  there 
because  of  the  sight,  but  because  of  the  Will  of  God,  although  the  sense  of 
sight  could  have  been  created  in  a  different  form.  There  are  passages  in 
the  Bible  which  at  first  sight  we  might  understand  to  imply  this  theory. 
E.g.,  "  The  Lord  hath  done  whatever  he  pleased  "  (Ps.  cxxxv.  6) ;  "  His 
soul  desired  it  and  he  made  it "  (Job  xxiii.  13)  ;  "  Who  will  say  unto  thee, 
\\  hat  doest  thou  ?  "  (Eccles.  viii.  4).     The  meaning  of  these  and  similar 


THE  OBJECT  OF  THE  CRl.M  lOS  300 

verses  is  this  :  whatever  God  desires  to  do  is  necessarily  done  ;  there  is  no- 
thing that  could  prevent  the  realization  of  His  will.  The  object  of  Hit  will 
is  only  that  which  is  possible,  and  of  the  things  possible  only  such  as  His 
wisdom  decrees  upon.  When  God  desires  to  produce  the  best  work,  no 
obstacle  or  hindrance  intervenes  between  Him  and  that  work.  This  is  the 
opinion  held  by  all  religious  people,  also  by  the  philosophers ;  it  is  also  our 
opinion.  For  although  we  believe  that  God  created  the  Universe  from 
nothing,  most  of  our  v«se  and  learned  men  believe  that  the  Creation  was  not 
the  exclusive  result  of  His  will ;  but  His  wisdom,  which  we  arc  unable  to 
comprehend,  made  the  actual  existence  of  the  Universe  necessary.  The  same 
unchangeable  wisdom  found  it  as  necessary  that  non-existence  should  precede 
the  existence  of  the  Universe.  Our  Sages  frequently  express  this  idea  in  the 
explanation  of  the  words,  "  He  hath  made  everything  beautiful  in  his  time  " 
(Eccles.  iii.  11),  only  in  order  to  avoid  that  which  is  objectionable,  viz.,  the 
opinion  that  God  does  things  without  any  purpose  whatever.  This  is  the  belief 
of  most  of  our  Theologians ;  and  in  a  similar  manner  have  the  Prophets  ex- 
pressed the  idea  that  all  parts  of  natural  products  are  well  arranged,  in  good 
order,  connected  with  each  other,  and  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of 
cause  and  effect ;  nothing  of  them  is  purposeless,  trivial,  or  in  vain  ;  they  arc 
all  the  result  of  great  wisdom.  Comp.  "  O  Lord,  how  manifold  arc  thy 
works  !  in  wisdom  hast  thou  made  them  all :  the  earth  is  full  of  thy 
riches  "  (Ps.  civ.  24)  ;  "  And  all  his  works  are  done  in  truth  "  {ibid,  xxiiii. 
4)  ;  "  The  Lord  by  wisdom  hath  founded  the  earth  "  (Prov.  iii.  19).  This 
idea  occurs  frequently ;  there  is  no  necessity  to  believe  otherwise ;  philo- 
sophic speculation  leads  to  the  same  result ;  viz.,  that  in  the  whole  of  Nature 
there  is  nothing  purposeless,  trivial,  or  unnecessar>',  especially  m  the  Nature 
of  the  spheres,  which  are  in  the  best  condition  and  order,  in  accordance  with 
their  superior  substance. 

Know  that  the  difficulties  which  lead  to  confusion  in  the  question  what  is 
the  purpose  of  the  Universe  or  of  any  of  its  parts,  arise  from  two  causes  : 
first,  man  has  an  erroneous  idea  of  himself,  and  believes  that  the  whole  world 
exists  only  for  his  sake  ;    secondly,  he  is  ignorant  both  about  the  nature  of 
the  sublunary  world,  and  about  the  Creator's  intention  to  ?;^'«^/^^'^^;<=°"jP 
all  beings  whose  existence  is  possible,  because  existence  is  undoubtedly  good. 
The  consequences  of  that  error  and  of  the  ignorance  about  the  two  things 
named,  are  doubts  and  confusion,  which  lead  many  to  imagme  that  some  of 
God's  works  are  trivial,  others  purposeless,  and  others  in, vain.     1  hose  who 
adopt  this  absurd  idea  that  God's  actions  are  utterly  purposeless  and  refuse 
to  consider  them  as  the  result  of  His  wisdom,  are  afraid  they  might  othenvisc 
be  compeUed  to  admit  the  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe,  and  guard 
themselves  against  it  by  the  above  theory.     I  have  already  'fy^^'l^J;^^ 
which  is  set  forth  in  Scripture  on  this  question,  and  which  it  ^J^^^ 
accept.     It  is  this :  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  assume  that  the  works  o   G^^, 
their  existence  and  preceding  non-existence    are  the  result  O'  "'^  ^"^^"^^ 
but  we  are  unable  to  understand  many  of  the  ways  of  His  ^^f-^J^^^^ 
works.     On  this  principle  the  whole  Law  of  Moses  is  based  ;   it  b^K  n    with 
this  principle:   "And  God  saw  aU  that  He  had  made,  -'i'  behold   u« as 
verv  eood ''  (Gen.  i.  ^i)  ;    and  it  ends  with  this  principle  :       1  he  Kcxk. 
peSe?tTHiswork''(Deut.xxxU.4;.     Note  it.     When  you  examine  dus 


310  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

view  and  that  of  the  philosophers,  taking  into  consideration  all  preceding 
cliapters  which  are  connected  with  this  subject,  you  will  find  that  there  is 
no  other  difference  of  opinion  as  regards  any  portions  of  the  Universe,  except 
that  the  philosophers  believe  in  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  and  we  believe 
in  the  Creation.     Note  this. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

As  Theologians  are  divided  on  the  question  whether  the  actions  of  God  are 
the  result  of  His  wisdom,  or  only  of  His  will  without  being  intended  for  any 
purpose  whatever,  so  they  are  also  divided  as  regards  the  object  of  the  com- 
mandments which  God  gave  us.  Some  of  them  hold  that  the  command- 
ments have  no  object  at  all ;  and  are  only  dictated  by  the  will  of  God. 
Others  are  of  opinion  that  all  commandments  and  prohibitions  are  dictated 
by  His  wisdom  and  serve  a  certain  aim  ;  consequently  there  is  a  reason  for 
each  one  of  the  precepts ;  they  are  enjoined  because  they  are  useful.  All 
of  us,  the  common  people  as  well  as  the  scholars,  believe  that  there  is  a  reason 
for  every  precept,  although  there  are  commandments  the  reason  of  which 
is  unknown  to  us,  and  in  which  the  ways  of  God's  wisdom  are  incomprehen- 
sible. This  view  is  distinctly  expressed  in  Scripture  ;  comp.  "  righteous 
statutes  and  judgments  "  (Deut.  iv.  8)  ;  "  the  judgments  of  the  Lord  are 
true,  and  righteous  altogether  "  (Ps.  xix.  lo).  There  are  commandments 
which  are  called  hukkim,  "  ordinances,"  like  the  prohibition  of  wearing 
garments  of  wool  and  linen  (sha^atnez),  boiling  meat  and  milk  together,  and 
the  sending  of  the  goat  [into  the  wilderness  on  the  Day  of  Atonement]. 
Our  Sages  use  in  reference  to  them  phrases  like  the  following  :  "  These  are 
things  which  I  have  fully  ordained  for  thee  ;  and  you  dare  not  criticize 
them  "  ;  "  Your  evil  inclination  is  turned  against  them  "  ;  and  "  non-Jews 
find  them  strange."  But  our  Sages  generally  do  not  think  that  such  pre- 
cepts have  no  cause  whatever,  and  serve  no  purpose  ;  for  this  would  lead  us 
to  assume  that  God's  actions  are  purposeless.  On  the  contrary,  they  hold  that 
even  these  ordinances  have  a  cause,  and  are  certainly  mtended  for  some  use, 
although  it  is  not  known  to  us  ;  owing  either  to  the  deficiency  of  our  know- 
ledge or  the  weakness  of  our  intellect.  Consequently  there  is  a  cause  for 
every  commandment ;  every  positive  or  negative  precept  serves  a  useful 
object ;  in  some  cases  the  usefulness  is  evident,  e.g.,  the  prohibition  of 
murder  and  theft ;  in  others  the  usefulness  is  not  so  evident,  e.g.,  the  pro- 
hibition of  enjoying  the  fruit  of  a  tree  in  the  first  three  years  (Lev.  xix.  23), 
or  of  a  vineyard  in  which  other  seeds  have  been  growing  (Deut.  xxii.  9). 
Those  commandments,  whose  object  is  generally  evident,  are  called  "  judg- 
ments "  {mishpatim)  ;  those  whose  object  is  not  generally  clear  are  called 
"  ordinances  "  {hukkim).  Thus  they  say  [in  reference  to  the  words  of  Moses]  : 
Ki  lo  dabar  rek  hu  tni-kem  (lit.  "  for  it  is  not  a  vain  thing  for  you,"  Deut. 
xxxii.  74)  ;  "  It  is  not  in  vain,  and  if  it  is  in  vain,  it  is  only  so  through  you." 
That  is  to  say,  the  giving  of  these  commandments  is  not  a  vain  thing  and 
without  any  useful  object ;  and  if  it  appears  so  to  you  in  any  commandment, 
it  is  owing  to  the  deficiency  in  your  comprehension.  You  certainly  know 
the  famous  saying  that  Solomon  knew  the  reason  for  all  commandments 
except  that  of  the  "  red  heifer."     Our  Sages  also  said  that  God  concealed 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  311 

the  causes  of  commandments,  lest  people  should  despise  them,  ai  S<jIomon 
did  in  respect  to  three  commandments,  the  reason  for  whicl>  is  clearly  iijtcd. 
In  this  sense  they  always  speak  ;  and  Scriptural  texts  support  the  idea.  I 
have,  however,  found  one  utterance  made  by  them  in  liereshit-Tahba  (wet. 
xliv.),  which  might  at  first  sight  appear  to  imply  that  some  commandment! 
have  no  other  reason  but  the  fact  that  they  are  commanded,  that  no  other 
object  is  intended  by  them,  and  that  they  do  not  serve  any  useful  object. 
I  mean  the  following  passage  :  What  difference  does  it  make  to  God  whether 
a  beast  is  killed  by  cutting  the  neck  in  front  or  in  the  back  ?  Surely  the 
commandments  arc  only  intended  as  a  means  of  trying  man  ;  in  accordance 
with  the  verse,  "  The  word  of  God  is  a  test "  (li  t.  tried)  (Ps.  i  viii.  31).  Although 
this  passage  is  very  strange,  and  has  no  parallel  in  the  writings  of  our  Sagc»,  1 
explain  it,  as  you  shall  soon  hear,  in  such  a  manner  that  I  remain  in  accord 
vdth  the  meaning  of  their  words  and  do  not  depart  from  the  principle  which 
we  agreed  upon,  that  the  commandments  serve  a  useful  object ;  "  for  it  is 
not  a  vain  thing  for  you  "  ;  "I  have  not  said  to  the  seed  of  Jacob,  seek  me 
in  vain.  I  the  Lord  speak  righteousness,  declare  that  which  is  right  "  (Isa. 
xlv.  19).  I  will  now  tell  you  what  intelligent  persons  ought  to  believe  in 
this  respect ;  namely,  that  each  commandment  has  necessarily  a  cause,  as 
far  as  its  general  character  is  concerned,  and  serves  a  certain  object ;  but  u 
regards  its  details  we  hold  that  it  has  no  ulterior  object.  Thus  killing  ani- 
mals for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  good  food  is  certainly  useful,  as  we  intend 
to  show  (below,  ch.  xlviii.) ;  that,  however,  the  kiUing  should  not  be  per- 
formed by  nehirah  (poleaxing  the  animal),  but  by  shebitah  (cutting  the 
neck),  and  by  dividing  the  oesophagus  and  the  windpipe  in  a  certain  place  ; 
these  regulations  and  the  like  are  nothing  but  tests  for  man's  obedience. 
In  this  sense  you  will  understand  the  example  quoted  by  our  Sages  [that  there 
is  no  difference]  between  killing  the  animal  by  cutting  its  neck  in  front  and 
cutting  it  in  the  back.  I  give  this  instance  only  because  it  has  been  men- 
tioned by  our  Sages  ;  but  in  reality  [there  is  some  reason  for  these  regula- 
tions]. For  as  it  has  become  necessary  to  eat  the  flesh  of  animab,  it  was 
intended  by  the  above  regulations  to  ensure  an  easy  death  and  to  effect  it 
by  suitable  means ;  whilst  decapitation  requires  a  sword  or  a  similar  instru- 
ment, the  sheJpitah  can  be  performed  with  any  instrument ;  and  in  ordrr 
to  ensure  an  easy  death  our  Sages  insisted  that  the  knife  should  be  well 
sharpened. 

A  more  suitable  instance  can  be  cited  from  the  detailed  commandments 
concerning  sacrifices.  The  law  that  sacrifices  should  be  brought  is  evidently 
of  great  use,  as  will  be  shown  by  us  {infra,  chap,  xlvi.) ;  but  we  cannot  wy 
why  one  offering  should  be  a  lamb,  whilst  another  is  a  ram  ;  and  why  a  fixctl 
number  of  them  should  be  brought.  Those  who  trouble  themselves  to  find 
a  cause  for  any  of  these  detailed  rules,  are  in  my  eyes  void  of  sense  ;  they  do 
not  remove  any  difficulties,  but  rather  increase  them.  Those  who  believe 
that  these  detailed  rules  originate  in  a  certain  cause,  are  as  far  from  the  truth 
as  those  who  assume  that  the  whole  law  is  useless.  You  must  know  that 
Divine  Wisdom  demanded  it^ar,  if  you  prefer,  say  that  circumstances 
made  it  necessary— that  there  should  be  parts  [of  His  work]  which  have 
no  certain  object ;  and  as  regards  the  Law,  it  appears  to  be  impossible  that 
it  should  not  include  some  matter  of  this  kind.     That  it  cannot  be  avoided 


312  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

may  be  seen  from  the  following  instance.  You  ask  why  must  a  lamb  be  sac- 
rificed and  not  a  ram  ?  but  the  same  question  would  be  asked,  why  a  ram 
had  been  commanded  instead  of  a  lamb,  so  long  as  one  particular  kind  is 
required.  The  same  is  to  be  said  as  to  the  question  why  were  seven  lambs 
sacrificed  and  not  eight ;  the  same  question  might  have  been  asked  if  there 
were  eight,  ten,  or  twenty  lambs,  so  long  as  some  definite  number  of  lambs 
were  sacrificed.  It  is  almost  similar  to  the  nature  of  a  thing  which  can 
receive  different  forms,  but  actually  receives  one  of  them.  We  must  not 
ask  whv  it  has  this  form  and  not  another  which  is  likewise  possible,  because 
we  should  have  to  ask  the  same  question  if  instead  of  its  actual  form  the  thing 
had  any  of  the  other  possible  forms.  Note  this,  and  understand  it.  The 
repeated  assertion  of  our  Sages  that  there  are  reasons  for  all  commandments, 
and  the  tradition  that  Solomon  knew  them,  refer  to  the  general  purpose  of 
the  commandments,  and  not  to  the  object  of  every  detail.  This  being  the 
case,  I  find  it  convenient  to  divide  the  six  hundred  and  thirteen  precepts 
into  classes ;  each  class  will  include  many  precepts  of  the  same  kind,  or  re- 
lated to  each  other  by  their  character.  I  will  [first]  explain  the  reason  of 
each  class,  and  show  its  undoubted  -  nd  undisputed  object,  and  then  I  shall 
discuss  each  commandment  in  the  class,  and  expound  its  reason.  Only  very 
few  will  be  left  unexplained,  the  reason  for  which  I  have  been  unable  to  trace 
unto  this  day.  I  have  also  been  able  to  comprehend  in  some  cases  even  the 
object  of  many  of  the  conditions  and  details  as  far  as  these  can  be  discovered. 
You  will  hear  all  this  later  on.  But  in  order  to  fully  explain  these  reasons  I 
must  premise  several  chapters  ;  in  these  I  will  discuss  principles  which  form 
the  basis  of  my  theory.     I  will  now  begin  these  chapters. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

The  general  object  of  the  Law  is  twofold  :  the  well-being  of  the  soul,  and 
the  well-being  of  the  body.  The  well-being  of  the  soul  is  promoted  by 
correct  opinions  communicated  to  the  people  according  to  their  capacity. 
Some  of  these  opinions  are  therefore  imparted  in  a  plain  form,  others  alle- 
gorically  ;  because  certain  opinions  are  in  their  plain  form  too  strong  for  the 
capacity  of  the  common  people.  The  well-being  of  the  body  is  established 
by  a  proper  management  of  the  relations  in  which  we  live  one  to  another. 
This  we  can  attain  in  two  ways :  first  by  removing  all  violence  from  our 
midst ;  that  is  to  say,  that  we  do  not  do  every  one  as  he  pleases,  desires,  and 
is  able  to  do  ;  but  every  one  of  us  does  that  which  contributes  towards  the 
common  welfare.  Secondly,  by  teaching  every  one  of  us  such  good  morals 
as  must  produce  a  good  social  state.  Of  these  two  objects,  the  one,  the 
well-being  of  the  soul,  or  the  communication  of  correct  opinions,  comes  un- 
doubtedly first  in  rank,  but  the  other,  the  well-being  of  the  body,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  state,  and  the  establishment  of  the  best  possible  relations  among 
men,  is  anterior  in  nature  and  time.  The  latter  object  is  required  first ; 
it  is  also  treated  [in  the  Law]  most  carefully  and  most  minutelv,  because  the 
well-being  of  the  soul  can  only  be  obtained  after  that  of  the  body  has  been 
secured.  For  it  has  already  been  found  that  man  has  a  double  perfection  : 
the  first  perfection  is  that  of  the  body,  and  the  second  perfection  is  that  of 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  313 

the  soul.  The  first  consists  in  the  most  healthy  condition  of  hi»  matrrial 
relations,  and  this  is  only  possible  when  man  has  all  his  wants  supplied,  u 
they  arise  ;  if  he  has  his  food,  and  other  things  needful  for  hit  IxHly,  e.g., 
shelter,  bath,  and  the  like.  But  one  man  alone  cannot  procure  all  tliij  ;  it 
is  impossible  for  a  single  man  to  obtain  this  comfort ;  it  is  only  possible  in 
society,  since  man,  as  is  well  known,  is  by  nature  social. 

The  second  perfection  of  man  consists  in  his  becoming  an  actually  intelli- 
gent being  ;  i.e.,  he  knows  about  the  things  in  existence  all  that  a  pcrwn 
perfectly  developed  is  capable  of  knowing.  This  second  perfection  certainly 
does  not  include  any  action  or  good  conduct,  but  only  knowledge,  which  is 
arrived  at  by  speculation,  or  established  by  research. 

It  is  clear  that  the  second  and  superior  kind  of  perfection  can  only  be 
attained  when  the  first  perfection  has  been  acquired  ;  for  a  person  that  is 
suffering  from  great  hunger,  thirst,  heat,  or  cold,  cannot  grasp  an  idea  even 
if  communicated  by  others,  much  less  can  he  arrive  at  it  by  his  own  reasoning. 
But  when  a  person  is  in  possession  of  the  first  perfection,  then  he  may  pos- 
sibly acquire  the  second  perfection,  which  is  undoubtedly  of  a  superior  kind, 
and  is  alone  the  source  of  eternal  life.  The  true  Law,  which  as  we  said  is 
one,  and  beside  which  there  is  no  other  Law,  viz.,  the  Law  of  our  teacher 
Moses,  has  for  its  purpose  to  give  us  the  twofold  perfection.  It  aims  first  at 
the  establishment  of  good  mutual  relations  among  men  by  removing  injus- 
tice and  creating  the  noblest  feelings.  In  this  way  the  people  in  every  land  arc 
enabled  to  stay  and  continue  in  one  condition,  and  every  one  can  acquire 
his  first  perfection.  Secondly,  it  seeks  to  train  us  in  faith,  and  to  impart 
correct  and  true  opinions  when  the  intellect  is  sufficiently  developed.  Scrip- 
ture clearly  mentions  the  twofold  perfection,  and  tells  us  that  its  acquisition 
is  the  object  of  all  the  divine  commandments.  Comp.  "  .\nd  the  Lord 
commanded  us  to  do  all  these  statutes,  to  fear  the  Lord  our  Go.1,  for  our 
good  always,  that  he  might  preserve  us  alive  as  it  is  this  day  "  (Dcut.  yj.  24). 
Here  the  second  perfection  is  first  mentioned  because  it  is  of  greater  impor- 
tance, being,  as  we  have  shown,  the  ultimate  aim  of  man's  existence.  This 
perfection  is  expressed  in  the  phrase,  "  for  our  good  always."  You  know  the 
interpretation  of  our  Sages,  "  '  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee  '  {ihtJ.  ixn.  7). 
namely,  in  the  world  that  is  all  good,  *  and  that  thou  maycst  prolong  thy 
days '  (ibid.),  i.e.,  in  the  world  that  is  all  eternal."  In  the  same  sense  I  ex- 
plain the  words,  "  for  our  good  always,"  to  mean  that  we  may  come  into  the 
world  that  is  all  good  and  eternal,  where  we  may  live  permanently  ;  and 
the  words,  "  that  he  might  preserve  us  alive  as  it  is  this  day  I  explam  as  re- 
ferring to  our  first  and  temporal  existence,  to  that  of  our  b.vly.  whi.h  c.in;v,T 
be  in  a  perfect  and  good  condition  except  by  the  co-opcrauon  of  socut.. 
as  has  been  shown  by  us. 

CHAPTER  XW'III 

It  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  Scripture  only  teaches  the  chief  point, 
of  those  true  principles  which  lead  to  the  true  perfection  of  man.  and  ■  •    . 
demands  in  general  terms  faith  in  them.     Thus  Scripture  teaches  the  Y.  ^ 
ence,  the  Unity,  the  Omniscience,  the  Omnipotence,  the  ^^;».  ^";'  »^^ 
Eternity  of  God.     All  this  is  given  in  the  form  of  final  results,  but  they 


314  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

cannot  be  understood  fully  and  accurately  except  after  the  acquisition  of 
many  kinds  of  knowledge.  Scripture  further  demands  belief  in  certain 
truths,  the  belief  in  which  is  indispensable  in  regulating  our  social  relations  ; 
such  is  the  belief  that  God  is  angry  with  those  who  disobey  Him,  for  it  leads 
us  to  the  fear  and  dread  of  disobedience  [to  the  will  of  God].  There  are 
other  truths  in  reference  to  the  whole  of  the  Universe  which  form  the  sub- 
stance of  the  various  and  many  kinds  of  speculative  sciences,  and  afford  the 
means  of  verifying  the  above-mentioned  principles  as  their  final  result.  But 
Scripture  does  not  so  distinctly  prescribe  the  belief  in  them  as  it  does  in  the 
first  case  ;  it  is  implied  in  the  commandment,  "  to  love  the  Lord  "  (Deut. 
xi.  13).  It  may  be  inferred  from  the  words,  "  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might  " 
(ibid.  vi.  5),  what  stress  is  laid  on  this  commandment  to  love  God.  We  have 
already  shown  in  the  Mishneh-torah  (Tes.  ha-torah  ii.  2)  that  this  love  is  only 
possible  when  we  comprehend  the  real  nature  of  things,  and  understand  the 
divine  wisdom  displayed  therein.  We  have  likewise  mentioned  there  what 
our  Sages  remark  on  this  subject. 

The  result  of  all  these  preliminary  remarks  is  this :  The  reason  of  a  com- 
mandment, whether  positive  or  negative,  is  clear,  and  its  usefulness  evident, 
if  it  directly  tends  to  remove  injustice,  or  to  teach  good  conduct  that  furthers 
the  well-being  of  society,  or  to  impart  a  truth  which  ought  to  be  believed 
either  on  its  own  merit  or  as  being  indispensable  for  facilitating  the  removal 
of  injustice  or  the  teaching  of  good  morals.     There  is  no  occasion  to  ask  for 
the  object  of  such  commandments ;  for  no  one  can,  e.g.,  be  in  doubt  as  to  the 
reason  why  we  have  been  commanded  to  believe  that  God  is  one  ;  why  we  are 
forbidden  to  murder,  to  steal,  and  to  take  vengeance,  or  to  retaliate,  or  why  we 
are  commanded  to  love  one   another.     But  there  are  precepts   concerning 
which  people  are  in  doubt,  and  of  divided  opinions,  some  believing  that  they 
are  mere  commands,  and  serve  no  purpose  whatever,  whilst  others  believe  that 
they  serve  a  certain  purpose,  which,  however,  is  unknown  to  man.     Such 
are  those  precepts  which  in  their  literal  meaning  do  not  seem  to  further  any 
of  the  three  above-named  results :    to  impart  some  truth,  to  teach  some 
moral,  or  to  remove  injustice.    They  do  not  seem  to  have  any  influence  upon 
the  well-being  of  the  soul  by  imparting  any  truth,  or  upon  the  well-being 
of  the  body  by  suggesting  such  ways  and  rules  as  are  useful  in  the  government 
of  a  state,  or  in  the  management  of  a  household.     Such  are  the  prohibitions 
of  wearing  garments  containing  wool  and  linen  ;    of  sowing  divers  seeds,  or 
of  boiling  meat  and  milk  together  ;  the  commandment  of  covering  the  blood 
[of  slaughtered  beasts  and  birds],  the  ceremony  of  breaking  the  neck  of  a  calf 
[in  case  of  a  person  being  found  slain,  and  the  murderer  being  unknown] ; 
the  law  concerning  the  first-born  of  an  ass,  and  the  like.     I  am  prepared  to 
tell  you  my  explanation  of  all  these  commandments,  and  to  assign  for  them 
a  true  reason  supported  by  proof,  with  the  exception  of  some  minor  rules, 
and  of  a  few  commandments,  as  I  have  mentioned  above.     I  will  show  that 
all  these  and  similar  laws  must  have  some  bearing  upon  one  of  the  following 
three  things,  viz.,  the  regulation  of  our  opinions,  or  the  improvement  of  our 
social  relations,  which  implies  two  things,  the  removal  of  injustice,  and  the 
teaching  of  good  morals.     Consider  what  wc  said  of  the  opinions  [implied 
in  the  laws] ;   in  some  cases  the  law  contains  a  truth  which  is  itself  the  only 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  315 

object  of  that  law,  as  e.g.,  the  truth  of  the  Unity,  Ktcrnity,  and  I  r- 

eaUty  of  God  ;    in  other  cases,  that  truth  is  only  the  means  of  sec ^  ...c 

removal  of  injustice,  or  the  acquisition  of  good  morals ;  such  is  the  belief 
that  God  is  angry  with  those  who  oppress  their  fcllow-mcn,  as  it  it  said, 
"  Mine  anger  will  be  kindled,  and  I  will  slay,"  etc.  (Kxod.  xxii.  23)  ;  or  the 
belief  that  God  hears  the  crying  of  the  oppressed  and  vexed,  to  deliver  them 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  oppressor  and  tyrant,  as  it  is  written,  "  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  when  he  will  cry  unto  me,  that  I  will  hear,  for  I  am  gracious  " 
(Exod.  xxii.  25). 

CHAPTER  XXIX 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Patriarch  Abraham  was  brought  up  in  the  religion 
and  the  opinion  of  the  Sabeans,  that  there  is  no  divine  being  except  the  stars. 
I  will  tell  you  in  this  chapter  their  works  which  are  at  present  extant  in 
Arabic  translations,  and  also  in  their  ancient  chronicles ;  and  I  will  show  you 
their  opinion  and  their  practice  according  to  these  books.  You  will  then 
see  clearly  that  they  consider  the  stars  as  deities,  and  the  sun  as  the  chief 
deity.  They  believe  that  all  the  seven  stars  arc  gods,  but  the  two  luminaries 
are  greater  than  all  the  rest.  They  say  distinctly  that  the  sun  governs  the 
world,  both  that  which  is  above  and  that  which  is  below ;  these  arc  exactly 
their  expressions.  In  these  books,  and  in  their  chronicles,  the  history  of 
Abraham  our  father  is  given  in  the  following  manner.  Abraham  was  brought 
up  in  Kutha  ;  when  he  differed  from  the  people  and  declared  that  there  is  a 
Maker  besides  the  sun,  they  raised  certain  objections,  and  nientioncdin  their 
arguments  the  evident  and  manifest  action  of  the  sun  in  the  Universe. 
"  You  are  right,"  said  Abraham  ;  "  [the  sun  acts  in  the  same  manner]  as 
'  the  axe  in  the  hand  of  him  that  hews  with  it.'  "  Then  some  of  his  argu- 
ments against  his  opponents  are  mentioned.  In  short,  the  king  put  him  in 
prison  ;  but  he  continued  many  days,  while  in  prison,  to  argue  against  them. 
At  last  the  king  was  afraid  that  Abraham  might  corrupt  the  kingdom,  and 
turn  the  people  away  from  their  religion  ;  he  therefore  expelled  Abraham 
into  Syria,  after  having  deprived  him  of  all  his  property. 

This  is  their  account  which  you  find  clearly  stated  in  the  book  called 
The  Nabatean  Agriculture.  Nothing  is  said  there  of  the  account  given  m 
our  trustworthy  books,  nor  do  they  mention  what  he  learnt  by  way  of  pro- 
phecy •  for  they  refused  to  believe  him,  because  he  attacked  their  evil  doc- 
trine, 'l  do  not  doubt  that  when  he  attacked  the  doctrine  of  all  his  fellow- 
men,  he  was  cursed,  despised,  and  scorned  by  these  people  who  adhered  to 
their  erroneous  opinions.  When  he  submitted  to  this  treatment  for  the 
sake  of  God,  as  ought  to  be  done  for  the  sake  of  His  glory,  God  said  to  him. 
"  And  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  them  that  curse  thee 
(Gen  xii  3)  The  result  of  the  course  which  Abraham  t<i..k,  is  the  fact  that 
most  people,  as  we  see  at  present,  agree  in  praising  him,  and  being  proud  of 
him  -so  that  even  those  who  are  not  his  descendants  call  themselves  by  his 
name.  No  one  opposes  him,  and  no  one  ignores  his  merits,  except  sonic 
Ignoble  remnants  of  the  nations  left  in  the  remote  corners  of  the  earth,  like 
the  savage  Turks  in  the  extreme  North,  and  the  Indians  in  the  extreme 
South.     These  are  remnants  of    the    Sabeans.  who  once  filled  the  earth. 


3i6  GUIDE   FOR   THE   PERPLEXED 

Those  who  were  able  to  think,  and  were  philosophers  in  those  days,  could 
only  raise  themselves  to  the  idea  that  God  is  the  spirit  of  the  spheres ;  the 
spheres  with  their  stars  being  the  body,  and  God  the  spirit.  Abu-becr 
al-Zaig  mentions  this  in  his  Commentary  on  the  book  of  Physics. 

All  the  Sabeans  thus  believed  in  the  eternity  of  the  Universe,  the  heavens 
being  in  their  opinion  God.     Adam  was  in  their  belief  a  human  being  born 
from  male  and  female,  like  the  rest  of  mankind  ;    he  was  only  distinguished 
from  his  fellow-men  by  being  a  prophet  sent  by  the  moon  ;  he  accordingly 
called  men  to  the  worship  of  the  moon,  and  he  wrote  several  works  on  agri- 
culture.    The  Sabeans  further  relate  that  Noah  was  an  agriculturist,  and 
that  he  was  not  pleased  with  the  worship  of  idols ;   they  blame  him  for  that, 
and  say  that  he  did  not  worship  any  image.     In  their  writings  we  meet  even 
with  the  statement  that  Noah  was  rebuked  and  imprisoned  because  he  wor- 
shipped God,   and  with  many  other  accounts  about  him.     The   Sabeans 
contend  that  Seth  differed  from  his  father  Adam,  as  regards  the  worship  of 
the  moon.     They  manufactured  ridiculous  stories,  which  prove  that  their 
authors  were  very  deficient  in  knowledge,  that  they  were  by  no  means  philo- 
sophers, but  on  the  contrary  were  extremely  ignorant  persons.     Adam,  they 
say,  left  the  torrid  zone  near  India  and  entered  the  region  of  Babylon,  bring- 
ing with  him  wonderful  things,  such  as  a  golden  tree,  that  was  growing,  and 
had  leaves  and  branches ;   a  stone  tree  of  the  same  kind,  and  a  fresh  leaf  of  a 
tree  proof  against  fire.     lie  related  that  there  was  a  tree  which  could  shelter 
ten  thousand  men,  although  it  had  only  the  height  of  a  man  ;   two  leaves  he 
brought  with  him,  each  of  which  was  sufficient  to  cover  two  men.     Of  these 
stories  the  Sabeans  have  a  wonderful  abundance.     I  am  surprised  that  per- 
sons who  think  that  the  Universe  is  eternal,  can  yet  believe  in  these  things 
which  nature  cannot  produce,  as  is  known  to  every  student  of  Natural 
Science.     They  only  mention  Adam,  and  relate  the  above  stories  about  him, 
in  order  to  support  their  theory  of  the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  ;   from  this 
theory  they  then  derive  the  doctrine  that  the  stars  and  the  spheres  are 
deities.     When  [Abraham]  the  "  Pillar  of  the  World  "  appeared,  he  became 
convinced  that  there  is  a  spiritual  Divine  Being,  which  is  not  a  body,  nor  a 
force  residing  in  a  body,  but  is  the  author  of  the  spheres  and  the  stars ;   and 
he  saw  the  absurdity  of  the  tales  in  which  he  had  been  brought  up.     He 
tlierefore  began  to  attack  the  belief  of  the  Sabeans,  to  expose  the  falsehood 
of  their  opinions,  and  to  proclaim  publicly  in  opposition  to  them,  "  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  the  God  of  the  Universe  "  (Gen.  xxi.  33),  which  procla- 
mation included  at  the  same  time  the  Existence  of  God,  and  the  Creation  of 
the  Universe  by  God. 

In  accordance  with  the  Sabean  theories  images  were  erected  to  the  stars, 
golden  images  to  the  sun,  images  of  silver  to  the  moon,  and  they  attributed 
the  metals  and  the  climates  to  the  influence  of  the  planets,  saying  that  a 
certain  planet  is  the  god  of  a  certain  zone.  They  built  temples,  placed  in 
them  images,  and  assumed  that  the  stars  sent  forth  their  influence  upon  these 
images,  which  arc  thereby  enabled  (to  speak)  to  understand,  to  comprcliend, 
to  inspire  human  beings,  and  to  tell  them  what  is  useful  to  them.  They 
apply  the  same  to  trees  which  fall  to  the  lot  of  these  stars.  When,  namely, 
a  certain  tree,  which  is  peculiar  to  a  certain  star,  is  dedicated  to  the  name  of 
this  star,  and   certain   things   are   done   for   the  tree  and  to  the  tree,  the 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  -^17 

spiritual  force  of  that  star  vvhicli  influences  that  tree,  in.|.i,..   y  \ 

speaks  to  them  when  they  are  asleep.  All  this  is  written  in  their  u  ,  .  , 
which  I  will  call  your  attention.  It  applies  to  the  "  prophcu  of  Baal,"  and 
the  "  prophets  of  Asherah,"  mentioned  in  Scripture,  in  whose  heart*  the 
Sabean  theories  had  taken  root,  who  forsook  Gud,  and  called,  "  Baal,  !•-" 
us  "  (i  Kings  xviii.  26)  ;  because  these  theories  were  then  general,  ignor.. 
had  spread,  and  the  madness  with  which  people  adhered  to  this  kind  of 
imaginations  had  increased  in  the  world.  When  such  opinions  were  adopted 
among  the  Israelites,  they  had  observers  of  clouds,  enchanters,  wiichci, 
charmers,  consulters  with  familiar  spirits,  wizards,  and  nccronuncen. 

We  have  shown  in  our  large  work,  Mishneh-torah  {ll'iWot,'^ bo Jah-Zxtr ah, 

i.  3),  that  Abraham  was  the  first  that  opposed  these  theories  by  ar:-  ■ -^ 

and  by  soft  and  persuasive  speech.     He  induced  these  people,  by  ,; 

kindness  to  them,  to  serve  God,  Afterwards  came  the  chief  of  the  prophcu, 
and  completed  the  work  by  the  commandment  to  slay  those  unbclicvcn,  to 
blot  out  their  name,  and  to  uproot  them  from  the  land  of  the  living.  Corap. 
"Ye  shall  destroy  their  altars,"  etc.  (Exod.  xxxiv.  13).  He  forbade  us  to 
follow  their  ways ;  he  said,  "Ye  shall  not  walk  in  the  manners  of  the  heathen," 
etc.  (Lev.  xx.  23).  You  know  from  the  repeated  declarations  in  the  Law  that 
the  principal  purpose  of  the  whole  Law  was  the  removal  and  utter  destruc- 
tion of  idolatry,  and  all  that  is  connected  therewith,  even  iu  name,  and 
everything  that  might  lead  to  any  such  practices,  e.g.,  acting  as  a  consuhcr 
with  familiar  spirits,  or  as  a  vizard,  passing  children  through  the  fire, 
divining,  observing  the  clouds,  enchanting,  charming,  or  inquiring  of  the 
dead.  The  law  prohibits  us  to  imitate  the  heathen  in  any  of  these  deeds, 
and  a  fortiori  to  adopt  them  entirely.  It  is  distinctly  said  in  the  Law  t'  .' 
everything  which  idolaters  consider  as  service  to  their  gods,  and  a  mcar.i  : 
approaching  them,  is  rejected  and  despised  by  God  ;  corap.  "  for  cvcrjr 
abomination  to  the  Lord,  which  he  hateth,  have  they  done  unto  their  gods  " 
(Deut.  xii.  31).  In  the  books  which  I  shall  name  to  you  later  on,  it  is  stated 
that  on  certain  occasions  they  offered  to  the  sun,  their  greatest  god,  seven 
beetles,  and  seven  mice,  and  seven  bats.  This  alone  suffices  to  show  how 
disgusting  their  practice   must  be  to  human  nature.     Thus  all   : 

cautioning  against  idolatry,  or  against  that  which  is  connected  t!. 

leads  to  it,  or  is  related  to  it,  are  evidently  useful.  They  all  tend  to  mvc  us 
from  the  evil  doctrines  that  deprive  us  of  everything  useful  for  the  acquisi- 
tion of  the  twofold  perfection  of  man,  by  leading  to  those  absurd  practices 
in  which  our  fathers  and  ancestors  have  been  brought  up.  Comp.  *'  And 
Joshua  said  unto  all  the  people.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  your 
fathers  dwelt  on  the  other  side  of  the  river  in  old  time,  even  Tcrah,  the 
father  of  Abraham,  and  the  father  of  Nahor,  and  they  served  other  gods  " 
(Josh.  xxiv.  2).  It  is  in  reference  to  these  [idolatrous  ideas]  that  the  true 
prophets  exclaim,  "  They  walked  after  [vain]  things,  which  do  not  profit." 
How  great  is  the  usefulness  of  every  precept  that  delivers  us  from  t'  ; 

error,  and  leads  us  back  to  the  true  faith  :  that  God,  the  Creator  of  al. 
rules  the  Universe;    that  He  must  be  served,  loved,  and  feared,  and  not 
those  imaginary  deities.     According  to  this  faith  we  approach  the  true  God, 
and  obtain  His  favour  without  having  recourse  to  burdensome  means ;    for 
nothing  else  is  required  but  to  love  and  fear  Ilim  ;   tliis  is  the  aim  in  scning 


3i8  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

God,  as  will  be  shown.  Comp.  "  And  now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy 
God  require  of  thee  but  to  fear  the  Lord"  ?  etc.  (Deut.  x.  12).  I  shall 
complete  this  subject  later  on ;  now  let  us  return  to  the  theme  [of  this 
chapter]. 

I  say  that  my  knowledge  of  the  belief,  practice,  and  worship  of  the  Sabcans 
has  given  me  an  insight  into  many  of  the  divine  precepts,  and  has  led  me  to 
know  their  reason.  You  will  confirm  it  when  I  shall  give  the  reason  of  com- 
mandments which  are  seemingly  purposeless.  I  will  mention  to  you  thf 
works  from  which  you  may  learn  all  that  I  know  of  the  religion  and  the 
opinions  of  the  Sabeans ;  you  will  thereby  obtain  a  true  knowledge  of  my 
theory  as  regards  the  purpose  of  the  divine  precepts. 

The  great  book  on  this  subject  is  the  book  On  the  Nabatean  Agriculture, 
translated  by  Ibn  Wahshiya.  In  a  succeeding  chapter  I  shall  explain  why 
the  Sabeans  had  their  religious  doctrines  written  in  a  work  on  agriculture. 
The  book  is  full  of  the  absurdities  of  idolatrous  people,  and  with  those  things 
to  which  the  minds  of  the  multitude  easily  turn  and  adhere  [perseveringly]  ; 
it  speaks  of  talismans,  the  means  of  directing  the  influence  [of  the  stars] ; 
witchcraft,  spirits,  and  demons  that  dwell  in  the  wilderness.  There  occur 
also  in  this  book  great  absurdities,  which  are  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  intelli- 
gent people.  They  were  intended  as  a  criticism  and  an  attack  on  the  evi- 
dent miracles  by  which  all  people  learnt  that  there  exists  a  God  who  is  judge 
over  all  people.  Comp.  "  That  thou  mayest  know  how  that  the  earth  is 
the  Lord's  "  (Exod.  ix.  29),  "  That  I  am  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  earth  " 
{ibid.  viii.  18). 

The  book  describes  things  as  having  been  mentioned  by  Adam  in  his  book  ; 
a  tree  which  is  found  in  India,  and  has  the  peculiarity  that  any  branch  taken 
from  it  and  thrown  to  the  ground  creeps  along  and  moves  like  serpents ;  it 
also  mentions  a  tree  which  in  its  root  resembles  a  human  being,  utters  a  loud 
sound,  and  speaks  a  word  or  words ;  a  plant  is  mentioned  which  has  this 
peculiarity,  that  a  leaf  of  it  put  on  the  neck  of  a  person  conceals  that  person 
from  the  sight  of  men,  and  enables  him  to  enter  or  leave  a  place  without 
being  seen,  and  if  any  part  of  it  is  burnt  in  open  air  a  noise  and  terrible  sounds 
are  heard  whilst  the  smoke  ascends.  Numerous  fables  of  this  kind  are  in- 
troduced in  the  description  of  the  wonders  of  plants  and  the  properties  of 
agriculture.  This  leads  the  author  to  argue  against  the  [true]  miracles,  and 
to  say  that  they  were  the  result  of  artifice. 

Among  other  fables  we  read  there  that  the  plant  althea,  one  of  the  Asherot, 
which  they  made,  as  I  told  you,  stood  in  Nineveh  twelve  thousand  years. 
This  tree  had  once  a  quarrel  with  the  mandragora,  which  wanted  to  take 
the  place  of  the  former.  The  person  who  had  been  inspired  by  this 
tree  ceased  to  receive  inspiration ;  when  after  some  time  the  prophetical 
power  had  returned  to  him,  he  was  told  by  the  althea  that  the  latter  had 
been  engaged  in  a  dispute  with  the  mandragora.  He  was  then  commanded 
to  write  to  the  magicians  that  they  should  decide  whether  the  althea  or  the 
mandragora  was  better  and  more  effective  in  witchcraft.  It  is  a  long  story, 
and  you  may  learn  from  it,  when  you  read  it,  the  opinions  and  the  wisdom 
of  the  men  of  that  time.  Such  were  in  those  days  of  darkness  the  wise  men 
of  Babel,  to  whom  reference  is  made  in  Scripture,  and  such  were  the  beliefs 
in  which  they  were  trained.     And  were  it  not  that  the  theory  of  the  Exist- 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  310 

ence  of  God  is  at  present  generally  accepieJ,  our  days  would  now  have  been 
darker  than  those  days,  though  in  otiier  respects.  I  return  now  to  my 
subject. 

In  that  book  the  following  story  is  also  related  :  One  of  the  ijcjbtroui 
prophets,  named  Tammuz,  called  upon  the  king  to  worship  the  seven  plancti 
and  the  twelve  constellations  of  the  Zodiac  ;  whereupon  the  king  killed  him 
in  a  dreadful  manner.  The  night  of  his  death  the  images  from  all  paru  of 
the  land  came  together  in  the  temple  of  Babylon  which  was  devoted  to  the 
image  of  the  Sun,  the  great  golden  image.  This  image,  which  was  sus- 
pended between  heaven  and  earth,  came  down  into  the  midst  of  the  temple, 
and  surrounded  by  all  other  images  commenced  to  mourn  for  Tammu?.,  and 
to  relate  what  had  befallen  him.  All  other  images  cried  and  mourned  the 
whole  night ;  at  dawn  they  flew  away  and  returned  to  their  temples  in 
every  corner  of  the  earth.  Hence  the  regular  custom  arose  for  the  women 
to  weep,  lament,  mourn,  and  cry  for  Tammuz  on  the  first  day  of  the  month 
of  Tammuz. 

Consider  what  opinions  people  had  in  these  days.  The  legend  of  Tammuz 
is  very  old  among  the  Sabeans.  This  book  will  disclose  to  you  most  of  the 
perverse  ideas  and  practices  of  the  Sabeans,  including  their  feasts.  But  '.  ■■  •. 
must  be  careful  and  must  not  be  misled  to  think  that  we  have  real  incid<  :.t- 
in  the  life  of  Adam,  or  of  any  other  person,  or  any  real  fact  in  the  stories  which 
they  relate  about  Adam,  the  serpent,  the  tree  of  knowledgcof  good  and  evil, 
and  the  allusion  to  the  garment  of  Adam  which  he  had  not  been  accustomed 
to  wear.  A  little  consideration  will  lay  open  the  falsehood  of  all  these  accounts ; 
it  will  show  that  they  have  been  invented  in  imitation  of  the  Pentateuch  when 
it  became  known  among  the  nations.  The  account  of  the  Creation  was  heard. 
and  it  was  taken  entirely  in  its  literal  sense.  They  have  done  this  in  order 
that  the  ignorant  may  hear  it,  and  be  persuaded  to  assume  the  Eternity  of 
the  Universe,  and  to  believe  that  the  Scriptural  account  contained  facts 
which  happened  in  the  manner  as  has  been  assumed  by  the  Sabeans. 

It  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  point  this  out  to  men  like  you.     You  have 
acquired  sufficient  knowledge  to  keep  your  mind  free  from  the  absurdities 
of  the  Kasdim,  Chaldeans,  and  Sabeans,  who  are  bare  of  every  true  5cic 
But  I  wish  to  exhort  you  that  you  should  caution  others,  for  ordinary  pc-  ,  .^ 
arc  very  much  inclined  to  believe  these  fables. 

To  the  same  class  of  books  we  count  the  book  Istimachis,  attributed  to 
Aristotle,  who  can  by  no  means  have  been  its  author  ;  also  the  lxK)k$  on 
Talismans,  such  as  the  book  of  Tomtom  ;  the  book  al-Sarb  ;  the  book  on 
the  degrees  of  the  sphere  and  the  constellations  rising  with  each  degree  ; 
a  book  on  Talismans  attributed  to  Aristotle,  a  book  ascribed  to  Hermes,  1 
book  of  the  Sabean  Ishak  in  defence  of  the  Sabean  religion,  and  >  ■  ,'— -c 
work  on  Sabean  customs,  details  of  their  religion,  ceremonies,  ;  ■  , 
offerings,  prayers  and  other  things  relating  to  their  faith. 

All  these  books  which  I  have  mentioned  are  works  on  idolatry  translated 
into  Arabic  ;  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  form  a  very  small  portion  in  com- 
parison to  that  which  has  not  been  translated,  and  that  which  is  no  longer 
extant,  but  has  been  lost  in  the  course  of  time.  But  those  works  which  arc 
at  present  extant,  include  most  of  the  opinions  of  the  Sabeans  and  ihcir 
practices,  which  arc  to  some  degree  stUl  in  vogue  in  the  world. 


320  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

They  describe  how  temples  are  built  and  images  of  metal  and  stone  placed 
in  them,  altars  erected  and  sacrifices  and  various  kinds  of  food  are  offered 
thereon,  festivals  celebrated,  meetings  held  in  the  temples  for  prayer  and 
other  kinds  of  service  ;  how  they  select  certain  very  distinguished  places  and 
call  them  temples  of  Intellectual  Images  (or  Forms)  ;  how  they  make  images 
"  on  the  high  mountains  "  (Deut.  xii.  2),  rear  asherot,  erect  pillars,  and  do 
many  other  things  which  you  can  learn  from  the  books  mentioned  by  us. 
The  knowledge  of  these  theories  and  practices  is  of  great  importance  in  ex- 
plaining the  reasons  of  the  precepts.  For  it  is  the  principal  object  of  the 
Law  and  the  axis  round  which  it  turns,  to  blot  out  these  opinions  from  man's 
heart  and  make  the  existence  of  idolatry  impossible.  As  regards  the  former 
Scripture  says :  "  Lest  your  heart  be  persuaded,"  etc.  (Deut.  xi.  16),  "  whose 
heart  turneth  away  to-day,"  etc.  {ibid.  xxix.  17).  The  actual  abolition  of 
idolatry  is  expressed  in  the  following  passage  :  "  Ye  shall  destroy  their  altars, 
and  burn  their  groves  in  fire  "  (Deut.  vii.  5),  "  and  ye  shall  destroy  their 
name,"  etc.  (xii.  3).  These  two  things  are  frequently  repeated  ;  they  form 
the  principal  and  first  object  of  the  whole  Law,  as  our  Sages  distinctly  told 
us  in  their  traditional  explanation  of  the  words  "  all  that  God  commanded 
you  by  the  hand  of  Moses  "  (Num.  xv.  23)  ;  for  they  say,  "  Hence  we  learn 
that  those  who  follow  idolatry  deny  as  it  were  their  adhesion  to  the  whole 
Law,  and  those  who  reject  idolatry  follow  as  it  were  the  whole  Law."  (B.  T. 
Kidd,  40a.)     Note  it. 

CHAPTER  XXX 

On  examining  these  old  and  foolish  doctrines  we  find  that  it  was  most 
generally  believed  by  the  people  that  by  the  worship  of  stars  the  earth  will 
become  inhabited,  and  the  ground  fertilized.  The  wise,  pious,  and  sin- 
fearing  men  among  them  reproved  the  people  and  taught  them  that  agri- 
culture, on  which  the  preservation  of  mankind  depended,  would  become 
perfect  and  satisfy  man's  wishes,  when  he  worshipped  the  sun  and  the  stars. 
If  man  provoked  these  beings  by  his  rebelliousness,  the  towns  would  be- 
come empty  and  waste.  In  the  above-named  books  it  is  stated  that  Mars 
was  angry  with  [lands,  that  form  now]  deserts  and  wastes,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  that  anger  they  were  deprived  of  water  and  trees,  and  have  become 
the  habitation  of  demons.  Tillers  of  the  ground  and  husbandmen  are 
praised  in  those  books,  because  they  are  engaged  with  the  cultivation  of  the 
land  in  accordance  with  the  will  and  desire  of  the  stars.  The  idolaters  also 
held  cattle  in  esteem  on  account  of  their  use  in  agriculture,  and  went  even  so 
far  as  to  say,  that  it  is  not  allowed  to  slay  them,  because  they  combine  in 
themselves  strength  and  wiUingness  to  do  the  work  of  man  in  tilling  the 
ground.  The  oxen,  notwithstanding  their  great  strength,  do  this,  and  sub- 
mit to  man,  because  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  they  should  be  employed  in 
agriculture.  When  these  views  became  generally  known,  idolatry  was  con- 
nected with  agriculture,  because  the  latter  is  indispensable  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  man,  and  of  most  animals.  The  idolatrous  priests  then  preached  to 
the  people  who  met  in  the  temples,  and  taught  them  that  by  certain  reli- 
gious acts,  rain  would  come  down,  the  trees  of  the  field  would  yield  their 
fruit,  and  the  land  would  be  fertile  and  inhabited.     See  what  is  said  in  the 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  321 

Nabatean  Agriculture  in  the  chapter  on  vineyards.  The  following  words  of 
the  Sabeans  are  quoted  there  :  "  All  ancient  wise  men  advised,  and  prophcii 
hkewise  commanded  and  enjoined  to  play  before  the  imaRcs  on  certain  in- 
struments during  the  festivals.  They  also  said— and  what  they  said  is  true- 
that  the  deities  arc  pleased  with  it,  and  reward  those  who  do  it.  They  pro- 
mise, indeed,  very  great  reward  for  these  things  ;  e.g.,  length  of  life,  pro- 
tection from  illness,  exemption  from  great  bodily  deformities,  plenty  of  the 
produce  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  fruits  of  the  trees."  These  are  the  words  r.f 
the  Sabeans.  When  these  ideas  spread,  and  were  considered  as  true,  God, 
in  His  great  mercy  for  us,  intended  to  remove  this  error  from  our  minds,  and 
to  protect  our  bodies  from  trouble  ;  and  therefore  desired  us  to  discontinue 
the  practice  of  these  useless  actions.  He  gave  us  His  Law  through  Moses, 
our  teacher,  who  told  us  in  the  name  of  God,  that  the  worship  of  stars  and 
other  corporeal  beings  would  effect  that  rain  would  cease,  the  land  be  waste, 
and  would  not  produce  anything,  and  the  fruit  of  the  trees  would  wither  ; 
calamities  would  befall  the  people,  their  bodies  would  be  deformed,  and  life 
would  be  shortened.  These  are  the  contents  of  "  the  words  of  the  covenant 
which  God  made  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  6-9).  It  is  frequently  expressed  in  all  parts 
of  Scripture,  that  the  worship  of  the  stars  would  be  followed  by  absence  of 
rain,  devastation  of  the  land,  bad  times,  diseases,  and  shortness  of  life.  But 
abandonment  of  that  worship,  and  the  return  to  the  service  of  God,  would 
be  the  cause  of  the  presence  of  rain,  fertility  of  the  ground,  good  timc-s. 
health  and  length  of  life.  Thus  Scripture  teaches,  in  order  that  man  should 
abandon  idolatry,  the  reverse  of  that  which  idolatrous  priests  preached  to 
the  people,  for,  as  has  been  shown  by  us,  the  principal  object  of  the  Law  is  to 
remove  this  doctrine,  and  to  destroy  its  traces. 

CHAPTER  XXXI 

Thkre  are  persons  who  find  it  difficult  to  give  a  reason  for  any  of  the  com- 
mandments, and  consider  it  right  to  assume  that  the  commandments  and 
prohibitions  have  no  rational  basis  whatever.  They  are  led  to  adopt  this 
theory  by  a  certain  disease  in  their  soul,  the  existence  of  which  they  i 
but  which  they  are  unable  to  discuss  or  to  describe.  For  they  ima-. 
these  precepts,  if  they  were  useful  in  any  respect,  and  were  commanded  be- 
cause of  their  usefulness,  would  seem  to  originate  in  the  thought  and  reason 
of  some  intelligent  being.  But  as  things  wiiich  are  not  objects  of  reason  and 
serve  no  purpose,  they  would  undoubtedly  be  attributed  to  God,  because  no 
thought  of  man  could  have  produced  them.  According  to  the  theory  of 
those  weak-minded  persons,  man  is  more  perfect  than  his  Creator.  For 
what  man  says  or  does  has  a  certain  object,  whilst  the  actions  of  God  arc 
different ;  He  commands  us  to  do  what  is  of  no  use  to  us,  and  forbids  us  to 
do  what  is  harmless.  Far  be  this !  On  the  contrary,  the  sole  object  of  the 
Law  is  to  benefit  us.  Thus  we  expl.iined  the  Scriptural  passage,  "  for  our 
good  always,  that  He  might  preserve  us  alive,  as  it  is  this  day  "  (Deut.  vi.  24). 
Again,  "  which  shall  hear  all  those  statutes  (hukkim),  and  say,  surely  this 
great  nation  is  a  wise  and  understanding  people  "  {ibid.  iv.  6).  He  thus  sa\-s 
that  even  every  one  of  these  "  statutes "  convinces  all  nations  of  the 
wisdom  and  understanding  it  includes.     Hut  if  no  reason  could  be  found  for 


322  GVIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

these  statutes,  if  they  produced  no  advantage  and  removed  no  evil,  why  then 
should  he  who  believes  in  them  and  follows  them  be  wise,  reasonable,  and  so 
excellent  as  to  raise  the  admiration  of  all  nations  ?  But  the  truth  is  undoubt- 
edly as  we  have  said,  that  every  one  of  the  six  hundred  and  thirteen 
precepts  serves  to  inculcate  some  truth,  to  remove  some  erroneous  opinion, 
to  establish  proper  relations  in  society,  to  diminish  evil,  to  train  in  good 
manners,  or  to  warn  against  bad  habits.  All  this  depends  on  three  things  : 
opinions,  morals,  and  social  conduct.  We  do  not  count  words,  because 
precepts,  whether  positive  or  negative,  if  they  relate  to  speech,  belong  to 
those  precepts  which  regulate  our  social  conduct,  or  to  those  which  spread 
truth,  or  to  those  which  teach  morals.  Thus  these  three  principles  suffice 
for  assigning  a  reason  for  every  one  of  the  Divine  commandments. 

CHAPTER  XXXIl 

On  considering  the  Divine  acts,  or  the  processes  of  Nature,  we  get  an  insight 
into  the  prudence  and  wisdom  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  creation  of  animals, 
with  the  gradual  development  of  the  movements  of  their  limbs  and  the  rela- 
tive positions  of  the  latter,  and  we  perceive  also  His  wisdom  and  plan  in  the 
successive  and  gradual  development  of  the  whole  condition  of  each  indi- 
vidual. The  gradual  development  of  the  animals'  movements  and  the 
relative  position  of  the  limbs  may  be  illustrated  by  the  brain.  The  front 
part  is  very  SDft,  the  back  part  is  a  little  hard,  the  spinal  marrow  is  still  harder, 
and  the  farther  it  extends  the  harder  it  becomes.  The  nerves  are  the  organs 
of  sensation  and  motion.  Some  nerves  are  only  required  for  sensation,  or 
for  slight  movements,  as,  e.g.,  the  movement  of  the  eyelids  or  of  the  jaws  ; 
these  nerves  originate  in  the  brain.  The  nerves  which  are  required  for  the 
movements  of  the  limbs  come  from  the  spinal  marrow.  But  nerves,  even 
those  that  come  directly  from  the  spinal  cord,  are  too  soft  to  set  the  joints  in 
motion  ;  therefore  God  made  the  following  arrangement :  the  nerves  branch 
out  into  fibres  which  are  covered  with  flesh,  and  become  muscles ;  the  nerves 
that  come  forth  at  the  extremities  of  the  muscles  and  have  already  com- 
menced to  harden,  and  to  combine  with  hard  pieces  of  ligaments,  are  the 
sinews  which  are  joined  and  attached  to  the  limbs.  By  this  gradual  develop- 
ment the  nerves  are  enabled  to  set  the  limbs  in  motion.  I  quote  this  one 
instance  because  it  is  the  most  evident  of  the  wonders  described  in  the  book 
On  the  use  of  the  limbs ;  but  the  use  of  the  limbs  is  clearly  perceived  by  all 
who  examine  them  with  a  sharp  eye.  In  a  similar  manner  did  God  provide 
for  each  individual  animal  of  the  class  of  mammalia.  When  such  an  animal 
is  born  it  is  extremely  tender,  and  cannot  be  fed  with  dry  food.  Therefore 
breasts  were  provided  which  yield  milk,  and  the  young  can  be  fed  with  moist 
food  which  corresponds  to  the  condition  of  the  limbs  of  the  animal,  until  the 
latter  have  gradually  become  dry  and  hard. 

Many  precepts  in  our  Law  are  the  result  of  a  similar  course  adopted  by  the 
same  Supreme  Being.  It  is,  namely,  impossible  to  go  suddenly  from  one 
extreme  to  the  other  ;  it  is  therefore  according  to  the  nature  of  man  im- 
possible for  him  suddenly  to  discontinue  everything  to  which  he  has  been 
accustomed.  Now  God  sent  Moses  to  make  [the  Israelites]  a  kingdom  of 
priests  and  a  holy  nation  (Exod.  xix.  6)  by  means  of  the  knowledge  of  God. 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  323 

Comp.  "  Unto  thee  it  was  showed  that  thou  mij,'litcst  know  that  ihc  l»ril 
is  God  "  (Dcut.  iv.  35)  ;  "  Know  therefore  this  day,  and  consider  it  in  thine 
heart,  that  the  Lord  is  God  "  (ilnd.  v.  39).  The  Israelites  were  commanded 
to  devote  themselves  to  His  service  ;  comp.  "  and  to  serve  him  witli  all  your 
heart"  (ibid.  xi.  13);  "and  you  shall  serve  the  Lord  your  God"  (Kxod. 
xxiii.  25)  ;  "  and  ye  shall  serve  him  "  (Deut.  xiii.  5).  But  the  custom  which 
was  in  those  days  general  among  all  men,  and  the  general  mode  of  worship  in 
which  the  IsraeUtes  were  brought  up,  consisted  in  sacrificing  animals  in  those 
temples  which  contained  certain  images,  to  bow  down  to  those  images,  and 
to  burn  incense  before  them  ;  religious  and  ascetic  persons  were  in  those 
days  the  persons  that  were  devoted  to  the  service  in  the  temples  erected  to 
the  stars,  as  has  been  explained  by  us.  It  was  in  accordance  with  the  wisdom 
and  plan  of  God,  as  displayed  in  the  whole  Creation,  that  He  did  not  com- 
mand us  to  give  up  and  to  discontinue  all  these  manners  of  service  ;  for  to 
obey  such  a  commandment  it  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
man,  who  generally  cleaves  to  that  to  which  he  is  used  ;  it  would  in  those 
days  have  made  the  same  impression  as  a  prophet  would  make  at  present  if 
he  called  us  to  the  service  of  God  and  told  us  in  His  name,  that  we  should  not 
pray  to  Him,  not  fast,  not  seek  His  help  in  time  of  trouble  ;  that  we  should 
serve  Him  in  thought,  and  not  by  any  action.  For  this  reason  God  allowed 
these  kinds  of  service  to  continue  ;  He  transferred  to  His  service  that  which 
had  formerly  served  as  a  worship  of  created  beings,  and  of  things  imaginary 
and  unreal,  and  commanded  us  to  serve  Him  in  the  same  manner ;  viz.,  to 
build  unto  Him  a  temple ;  comp,  "  And  they  shall  make  unto  me  a  sanc- 
tuary "  (Exod.  XXV.  8)  ;  to  have  the  altar  erected  to  His  name  ;  comp.  "  An 
altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  unto  me  "  (ibid.  xx.  21) ;  to  offer  the  sacrifices 
to  Him  ;  comp.  "  If  any  man  of  you  bring  an  offering  unto  the  Lord  "  (Lev. 
i.  2),  to  bow  down  to  Him  and  to  burn  incense  before  Him.  He  has  for- 
bidden to  do  any  of  these  things  to  any  other  being  ;  comp.  "  He  who  sarri- 
ficeth  unto  any  God,  save  the  Lord  only,  he  shall  be  utterly  dcstroye-i  " 
(Exod.  xxii.  19)  ;  "  For  thou  shalt  bow  down  to  no  other  God  "  (ibid,  xxxiv. 
14).  He  selected  priests  for  the  service  in  the  temple  ;  comp.  "  And  they 
shall  minister  unto  me  in  the  priest's  office  "  (ibid,  xxviii.  41).  He  made  it 
obligatory  that  certain  gifts,  called  the  gifts  of  the  Levites  and  the  priests, 
should  be  assigned  to  them  for  their  maintenance  while  they  are  engaged  in 
the  service  of  the  temple  and  its  sacrifices.  By  this  Divine  plan  it  was  effected 
that  the  traces  of  idolatry  were  blotted  out,  and  the  truly  great  principle  of 
our  faith,  the  Existence  and  Unity  of  God,  was  firmly  established  ;  this  result 
was  thus  obtained  vnthout  deterring  or  confusing  the  minds  of  the  pcojlc  b/ 
the  abolition  of  the  service  to  which  they  were  accustomed  and  which  -lone 
was  famiUar  to  them.  I  know  that  you  will  at  first  thought  reject  this  idea 
and  find  it  strange  ;  you  will  put  the  following  question  to  me  in  your  heart  : 
How  can  we  suppose  that  Divine  commandments,  prohibitions,  and  impor- 
tant acts,  which  are  fully  explained,  and  for  which  certain  seasons  arc  fixed, 
should  not  have  been  commanded  for  their  own  sake,  but  only  for  the  sake 
of  some  other  thing  ;  as  if  they  were  only  the  means  which  He  employed  for 
His  primary  object  ?  What  prevented  Him  from  making  His  primary 
object  a  direct  commandment  to  us,  and  to  give  us  the  capacity  of  obcpng 
it  ?     Those  precepts  which  in  your  opinion  are  only  the  mcani  and  not  the 


324  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

object  would  then  have  been  unnecessary.  Hear  my  answer,  which  will  cure 
your  heart  of  this  disease  and  will  show  you  the  truth  of  that  which  I  have 
pointed  out  to  you.  There  occurs  in  the  Law  a  passage  which  contains  ex- 
actly the  same  idea  ;  it  is  the  following  :  "  God  led  them  not  through  the 
way  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  although  that  was  near ;  for  God  said, 
Lest  peradventure  the  people  repent  when  they  see  war,  and  they  return  to 
Egypt ;  but  God  led  the  people  about,  through  the  way  of  the  wilderness  of 
the  Red  Sea,"  etc.  (Exod.  xiii.  17).  Here  God  led  the  people  about, 
away  from  the  direct  road  which  He  originally  intended,  because  He  feared 
they  might  meet  on  that  way  with  hardships  too  great  for  their  ordinary 
strength  ;  He  took  them  by  another  road  in  order  to  obtain  thereby  His 
original  object.  In  the  same  manner  God  refrained  from  prescribing  what 
the  people  by  their  natural  disposition  would  be  incapable  of  obeying,  and 
gave  the  above-mentioned  commandments  as  a  means  of  securing  His  chief 
object,  viz.,  to  spread  a  knowledge  of  Him  [among  the  people],  and  to  cause 
them  to  reject  idolatry.  It  is  contrary  to  man's  nature  that  he  should 
suddenly  abandon  all  the  different  kinds  of  Divine  service  and  the  different 
customs  in  which  he  has  been  brought  up,  and  which  have  been  so  general, 
that  they  were  considered  as  a  matter  of  course  ;  it  would  be  just  as  if  a  person 
trained  to  work  as  a  slave  with  mortar  and  bricks,  or  similar  things,  should 
interrupt  his  work,  clean  his  hands,  and  at  once  fight  vdth  real  giants.  It 
was  the  result  of  God's  wisdom  that  the  Israelites  were  led  about  in  the 
wilderness  till  they  acquired  courage.  For  it  is  a  weU-known  fact  that  travel- 
ling in  the  wilderness,  and  privation  of  bodily  enjoyments,  such  as  bathing, 
produce  courage,  whilst  the  reverse  is  the  source  of  faint-heartedness ; 
besides,  another  generation  rose  during  the  wanderings  that  had  not  been 
accustomed  to  degradation  and  slavery.  All  the  travelling  in  the  wilderness 
was  regulated  by  Divine  commands  through  Moses ;  comp.  "  At  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord  they  rested,  and  at  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  they  journeyed  ;  they  kept  the  charge  of  the  Lord  and  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  by  the  hand  of  Moses  "  (Num.  ix.  23).  In  the  same 
way  the  portion  of  the  Law  under  discussion  is  the  result  of  divine  wisdom, 
according  to  which  people  are  allowed  to  continue  the  kind  of  worship  to 
which  they  have  been  accustomed,  in  order  that  they  might  acquire  the  true 
faith,  which  is  the  chief  object  [of  God's  commandments].  You  ask.  What 
could  have  prevented  God  from  commanding  us  directly,  that  which  is  the 
chief  object,  and  from  giving  us  the  capacity  of  obeying  it  ?  This  would 
lead  to  a  second  question,  What  prevented  God  from  leading  the  Israelites 
through  the  way  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  and  endowing  them  with 
strength  for  fighting  ?  The  leading  about  by  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  a 
pillar  of  fire  by  night  would  then  not  have  been  necessary.  A  third  question 
would  then  be  asked  in  reference  to  the  good  promised  as  reward  for  the 
keeping  of  the  commandments,  and  the  evil  foretold  as  a  punishment  for 
sins.  It  is  the  following  question  :  As  it  is  the  chief  object  and  purpose  of 
God  that  we  should  believe  in  the  Law,  and  act  according  to  that  which  is 
written  therein,  why  has  He  not  given  us  the  capacity  of  continually  believing 
in  it,  and  following  its  guidance,  instead  of  holding  out  to  us  reward  for 
obedience,  and  punishment  for  disobedience,  or  of  actually  giving  all  the 
predicted  reward  and  punishment  f     Yov  [the  promises  and  the  threats]  are 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  325 

but  the  means  of  leading  to  this  chief  object.  What  prevented  Him  from 
giving  us,  as  part  of  our  nature,  the  will  to  do  that  which  He  desires  us  to  do, 
and  to  abandon  the  kind  of  worship  which  He  rejects  ?  There  is  one  general 
answer  to  these  three  questions,  and  to  all  questions  of  the  same  character  ; 
it  is  this  :  Although  in  every  one  of  the  signs  [related  in  Scripture]  the  natural 
property  of  some  individual  being  is  changed,  the  nature  of  man  is  never 
changed  by  God  by  way  of  miracle.  It  is  in  accordance  with  this  important 
principle  that  God  said,  "  O  that  there  were  such  an  heart  in  them,  that  they 
vvould  fear  me,"  etc.  (Deut.  v.  26).  It  is  also  for  this  reason  that  He  dis- 
tinctly stated  the  commandments  and  the  prohibitions,  the  reward  and  the 
punishment.  This  principle  as  regards  miracles  has  been  frequently  ex- 
plained by  us  in  our  works ;  I  do  not  say  this  because  I  believe  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult for  God  to  change  the  nature  of  every  individual  person  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  possible,  and  it  is  in  His  power,  according  to  the  principles  tauj,'ht 
in  Scripture ;  but  it  has  never  been  His  will  to  do  it,  and  it  never  will  be. 
If  it  were  part  of  His  will  to  change  [at  His  desire]  the  nature  of  any  person, 
the  mission  of  prophets  and  the  giving  of  the  Law  would  have  been  alto- 
gether superfluous. 

I  now  return  to  my  theme.  As  the  sacrificial  service  is  not  the  primary 
object  [of  the  commandments  about  sacrifice],  whilst  supplications,  prayers, 
and  similar  kinds  of  worship  are  nearer  to  the  primary  object,  and  indispen- 
sable for  obtaining  it,  a  great  difference  was  made  in  the  Law  between  these 
two  kinds  of  service.  The  one  kind,  which  consists  in  offering  sacrifices, 
although  the  sacrifices  are  offered  to  the  name  of  God,  has  not  been  made 
obligatory  for  us  to  the  same  extent  as  it  had  been  before.  We  were  not 
commanded  to  sacrifice  in  every  place,  and  in  every  time,  or  to  build  a  temple 
in  every  place,  or  to  permit  any  one  who  desires  to  become  priest  and  to 
sacrifice.  On  the  contrary,  all  this  is  prohibited  unto  us.  Only  one  temple 
has  been  appointed,  "  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose  "  (Deut.  xii. 
26)  ;  in  no  other  place  is  it  allowed  to  sacrifice  ;  comp.  "  Take  heed  to  thy- 
self, that  thou  offer  not  thy  burnt-oflferings  in  every  place  that  thou  scest  " 
(ibid.  v.  13)  ;  and  only  the  members  of  a  particular  family  were  allowed  to 
officiate  as  priests.  All  these  restrictions  served  to  limit  this  kind  of  worship, 
and  keep  it  within  those  bounds  within  which  God  did  not  think  it  necessary 
to  abolish  sacrificial  service  altogether.  But  prayer  and  supplication  can  be 
offered  everywhere  and  by  every  person.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the 
commandment  of  zizit  (Num.  xv.  38)  ;  mezuzah  (Deut.  vi.  9  ;  xi.  20) ; 
tefillin  (Exod.  xiii.  9,  16)  ;  and  similar  kinds  of  divine  service. 

Because  of  this  principle  which  I  explained  to  you,  the  Prophets  in  their 
books  are  frequently  found  to  rebuke  their  fellow-men  for  being  ovcr-zcalcus 
and  exerting  themselves  too  much  in  bringing  sacrifices ;  the  prophets  thus 
distinctly  declared  that  the  object  of  the  sacrifices  is  not  very  essential,  and 
that  God  does  not  require  them.  Samuel  therefore  said,  "  Hath  the  Lord 
as  great  delight  in  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice  ol 
the  Lord  "  (l  Sam.  xv.  22)  ?  Isaiah  exclaimed,  "  To  what  purpose  is  the 
multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me  ?  saith  the  Lord  "  (Isa.  i.  1 1)  ;  Jeremiah 
declared  :  "  For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the 
day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offering.; 
or  sacrifices.     But  this  thing  commanded  I  them,  saying.  Obey  my  voice,  and 


326  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people  "  (Jer.  vii.  22,  23).  This 
passage  has  been  found  difficult  in  the  opinion  of  all  those  whose  word?  I  read 
or  heard  ;  they  ask,  How  can  Jeremiah  say  that  God  did  not  command  us 
about  burnt-offering  and  sacrifice,  seeing  so  many  precepts  refer  to  sacrifice  ? 
The  sense  of  the  passage  agrees  with  what  I  explained  to  you.  Jeremiah 
says  [in  the  name  of  God]  the  primary  object  of  the  precepts  is  this.  Know 
me,  and  serve  no  other  being  ;  "  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
people  "  (Lev.  xxvi.  12).  But  the  commandment  that  sacrifices  shall  be 
brought  and  that  the  temple  shall  be  visited  has  for  its  object  the  success  of 
that  principle  among  you  ;  and  for  its  sake  I  have  transferred  these  modes 
of  worship  to  my  name  ;  idolatry  shall  thereby  be  utterly  destroyed,  and 
Jewish  faith  firmly  established.  You,  however,  have  ignored  this  object, 
and  taken  hold  of  that  which  is  only  the  means  of  obtaining  it ;  you  have 
doubted  my  existence,  "  ye  have  denied  the  Lord,  and  said  he  is  not  "  (Jer. 
v.  12)  ;  ye  served  idols ;  "  burnt  incense  unto  Baal,  and  walked  after  other 
gods  whom  ye  know  not.  And  come  and  stand  before  me  in  this  house  " 
{ibid.  vii.  9-10)  ;  i.e.,  you  do  not  go  beyond  attending  the  temple  of  the 
Lord,  and  offering  sacrifices ;  but  this  is  not  the  chief  object. — I  have  another 
way  of  explaining  this  passage  with  exactly  the  same  result.  For  it  is 
distinctly  stated  in  Scripture,  and  handed  down  by  tradition,  that  the  first 
commandments  communicated  to  us  did  not  include  any  law  at  all  about 
burnt-ofi'ering  and  sacrifice.  You  must  not  see  any  difficulty  in  the  Passover 
which  was  commanded  in  Egypt ;  there  was  a  particular  and  evident  reason 
for  that,  as  will  be  explained  by  me  (chap.  xlvi.).  Besides  it  was  revealed  in 
the  land  of  Egypt ;  whilst  the  laws  to  which  Jeremiah  alludes  in  the  above 
passage  are  those  which  were  revealed  after  the  departure  from  Egypt.  For 
this  reason  it  is  distinctly  added,  "  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  from 
the  land  of  Egypt."  The  first  commandment  after  the  departure  from 
Egypt  was  given  at  Marah,  in  the  following  words,  "  If  thou  wilt  diligently 
hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  wilt  do  that  which  is  right  in 
His  sight,  and  wilt  give  ear  to  His  commandments "  (Exod.  xv.  26). 
"  There  he  made  for  them  a  statute  and  an  ordinance,  and  there  he  proved 
them "  (ibid.  ver.  25).  According  to  the  true  traditional  explanation, 
Sabbath  and  civil  laws  were  revealed  at  Marah  ;  "  statute  "  alludes  to  Sab- 
bath, and  "  ordinance  "  to  civil  laws,  which  are  the  means  of  removing 
injustice.  The  chief  object  of  the  Law,  as  has  been  shown  by  us,  is  the 
teaching  of  truths ;  to  which  the  truth  of  the  creatio  ex  nihilo  belongs.  It 
is  known  that  the  object  of  the  law  of  Sabbath  is  to  confirm  and  to  establish 
this  principle,  as  we  have  shown  in  this  treatise  (Part.  II.  chap.  xxxi.).  In 
addition  to  the  teaching  of  truths  the  Law  aims  at  the  removal  of  injustice 
from  mankind.  We  have  thus  proved  that  the  first  laws  do  not  refer  to 
burnt-offering  and  sacrifice,  which  are  of  secondary  importance.  The  same 
idea  whicli  is  contained  in  the  above  passage  from  Jeremiah  is  also  expressed 
in  the  Psalms,  where  the  people  are  rebuked  that  they  ignore  the  chief  object, 
and  make  no  distinction  between  chief  and  subsidiary  lessons.  The  Psalmist 
says :  "  Hear,  O  my  people,  and  I  will  speak;  O  Israel,  and  I  will  testify 
against  thee  :  I  am  God,  even  thy  God.  I  will  not  reprove  thee  for  thy 
sacrifices  or  thy  burnt-offerings,  they  have  been  continually  before  me.  I 
will  take  no  bullock  out  of  thy  house,  nor  he-goats  out  of  thy  folds  "  (Ps.  1. 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  327 

-9)- — Wherever  this  subject  is  mentioned,  this  is  its  racaiiing.     Consider  it 
well,  and  rellect  oa  it. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 

It  is  also  the  object  of  the  perfect  Law  to  make  man  reject,  despise,  and  re- 
duce his  desires  as  much  as  is  in  his  power.  He  should  only  give  way  to  them 
when  absolutely  necessary.  It  is  well  known  that  it  is  intemperance  in 
eating,  drinking,  and  sexual  intercourse  that  people  mostly  rave  and  indul^je 
in  ;  and  these  very  tilings  counteract  the  ulterior  perfection  of  man,  impede 
at  the  same  time  the  development  of  his  first  perfection,  and  generally  disturb 
the  social  order  of  the  country  and  the  economy  of  the  family.  For  by 
following  entirely  the  guidance  of  lust,  in  the  manner  of  fools,  man  loses  his 
intellectual  energy,  injures  his  body,  and  perishes  before  his  natural  time  ; 
sighs  and  cares  multiply  ;  there  is  an  increase  of  envy,  hatred,  and  warfare 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  what  another  possesses.  The  cause  of  all  this  is  the 
circumstance  that  the  ignorant  considers  physical  enjoyment  as  an  object  to 
be  sought  for  its  own  sake.  God  in  His  wisdom  has  therefore  given  us  such 
commandments  as  would  counteract  that  object,  and  prevent  us  altogether 
from  directing  our  attention  to  it,  and  has  debarred  us  from  everything  that 
leads  only  to  excessive  desire  and  lust.  This  is  an  important  thing  in- 
cluded in  the  objects  of  our  Law.  See  how  the  Law  commanded  to  slay  a 
person  from  whose  conduct  it  is  evident  that  he  will  go  too  far  in  seeking  the 
enjoyment  of  eating  and  drinking.  I  mean  "  the  rebellious  and  stubborn 
son  "  ;  he  is  described  as  "  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard  "  (Deut.  xxi.  20).  The 
Law  commands  to  stone  him  and  to  remove  him  from  society  lest  he  grow 
up  in  this  character,  and  kill  many,  and  injure  the  condition  of  good  men  by 
his  great  lust. 

Politeness  is  another  virtue  promoted  by  the  Law.  Man  shall  listen  to 
the  words  of  his  neighbour  ;  he  shall  not  be  obstinate,  but  shall  yield  to  the 
wish  of  his  fellow-men,  respond  to  their  appeal,  act  according  to  their  desire, 
and  do  what  they  like.  Thus  the  Law  commands,  "  Circumcise  therefore 
the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and  be  no  more  stiff-necked  "  (Deut.  x.  16)  ; 
"  Take  heed  and  hearken  "  (ibid,  xxvii.  9).  "  If  you  be  willing  and  obedient  " 
(Isa.  i.  19).  Those  who  listen  [to  the  words  of  others]  and  accept  as  much 
as  is  right  are  represented  as  saying,  "  We  will  hear  and  do  "  (Deut.  v.  24), 
or  in  a  figurative  style,  "  Draw  me,  we  will  run  after  thee  "  (Song  i.  4). 

The  Law  is  also  intended  to  give  its  followers  purity  and  holiness ;  by 
teaching  them  to  suppress  sensuality,  to  guard  against  it  and  to  reduce  it  to 
a  minimum,  as  will  be  explained  by  us.  For  when  God  commanded  [Moses] 
to  sanctify  the  people  for  the  receiving  of  the  Law,  and  said,  "  Sanctify  them 
to-day  and  to-morrow  "  (Exod.  xix.  10),  Moses  [in  obedience  to  this  com- 
mand] said  to  the  people,  "  Come  not  at  your  wives  "  {ibtd.  vcr.  15).  Here 
it  is  clearly  stated  that  sanctification  consists  in  absence  of  sensuality.  But 
abstinence  from  drinking  wine  is  also  called  holiness ;  in  reference  to  the 
Nazarite  it  is  therefore  said,  "  He  shall  be  holy  "  (Num.  vi.  5).  Accordmg 
to  Siphra  the  words,  "  sanctify  yourselves  and  be  ye  holy  "  (Lev.  xx.  7), 
refer  to  the  sanctification  effected  by  performing  the  divine  commands. 
As  the  obedience  to  such  precepts  as  have  been  mentioned  above  is  called  by 


328  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  Law  sanctification  and  purification,  so  is  defilement  applied  to  the  trans- 
gression of  these  precepts  and  the  performance  of  disgraceful  acts,  as  will  be 
shown.  Cleanliness  in  dress  and  body  by  washing  and  removing  sweat  and 
dirt  is  included  among  the  vaiious  objects  of  the  Law,  but  only  if  connected 
with  purity  of  action,  and  with  a  heart  free  from  low  principles  and  bad 
habits.  It  would  be  extremely  bad  for  man  to  content  himself  with  a  purity 
obtained  by  washing  and  cleanliness  in  dress,  and  to  be  at  the  same  time 
voluptuous  and  unrestrained  in  food  and  lust.  These  are  described  by  Isaiah 
as  follows  :  "  They  that  sanctify  themselves  and  purify  themselves  in  the 
gardens,  but  continue  their  sinful  life,  when  they  are  in  the  innermost  [of 
their  houses],  eating  swine's  flesh,  and  the  abomination,  and  the  mouse  " 
(Isa.  Ixvi.  17)  :  that  is  to  say,  they  purify  and  sanctify  themselves  outwardly 
as  much  as  is  exposed  to  the  sight  of  the  people,  and  when  they  are  alone  in 
their  chambers  and  the  inner  parts  of  their  houses,  they  continue  their 
rebelliousness  and  disobedience,  and  indulge  in  partaking  of  forbidden  food, 
such  as  [the  flesh  of]  svvdne,  worms,  and  mice.  The  prophet  alludes  perhaps 
in  the  phrase  "  behind  one  tree  in  the  midst  "  to  indulgence  in  forbidden 
lust.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is  therefore  this :  They  appear  outwardly 
clean,  but  their  heart  is  bent  upon  their  desires  and  bodily  enjoyments,  and 
this  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Law.  For  the  chief  object  of  the  Law 
is  to  [teach  man  to]  diminish  his  desires,  and  to  cleanse  his  outer  appearance 
after  he  has  purified  his  heart.  Those  who  wash  their  body  and  cleanse  their 
garments  whilst  they  remain  dirty  by  bad  actions  and  principles,  are  de- 
scribed by  Solomon  as  "  a  generation  that  are  pure  in  their  own  eyes,  and  yet 
are  not  washed  from  their  filthiness ;  a  generation,  oh  how  lofty  are  their 
eyes!"  etc.  (Prov.  xxx.  12-13).  Consider  well  the  principles  which  we 
mentioned  in  this  chapter  as  the  final  causes  of  the  Law  ;  for  there  are  many 
precepts,  for  which  you  will  be  unable  to  give  a  reason  unless  you  possess  a 
knowledge  of  these  principles,  as  will  be  explained  further  on. 

CHAPTER  XXXIV 

It  is  also  important  to  note  that  the  Law  does  not  take  into  account  excep- 
tional circumstances ;  it  is  not  based  on  conditions  which  rarely  occur. 
Whatever  the  Law  teaches,  whether  it  be  of  an  intellectual,  a  moral,  or  a 
practical  character,  is  founded  on  that  which  is  the  rule  and  not  on  that  which 
is  the  exception  ;  it  ignores  the  injury  that  might  be  caused  to  a  single  person 
through  a  certain  maxim  or  a  certain  divine  precept.  For  the  Law  is  a 
divine  institution,  and  [in  order  to  understand  its  operation]  we  must  con- 
sider how  in  Nature  the  various  forces  produce  benefits  which  are  general, 
but  in  some  solitary  cases  they  cause  also  injury.  This  is  clear  from  what 
has  been  said  by  ourselves  as  well  as  by  others.  We  must  consequently  not 
be  surprised  when  we  find  that  the  object  of  the  Law  does  not  fuUy  appear 
in  every  individual ;  there  must  naturally  be  people  who  are  not  perfected 
by  the  instruction  of  the  Law,  just  as  there  are  beings  which  do  not  receive 
from  the  specific  forms  in  Nature  all  that  they  require.  For  all  this  comes 
from  one  God,  is  the  result  of  one  act ;  "  they  are  all  given  from  one  shep- 
herd "  (Eccles.  xii.  11).  It  is  impossible  to  be  otherwise  ;  and  we  have  al- 
ready explained   (chap,  xv.)  that  that  which  is  impossible  always  remains 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  329 

impossible  and  never  changes.  From  this  coiibiJcration  it  also  followf  that 
the  laws  cannot  like  medicine  vary  according  to  the  different  cnndition.  •  f 
persons  and  times ;  whilst  the  cure  of  a  person  depends  on  his  partiiular  <  : 
stitution  at  the  particular  time,  the  divine  guidance  contained  in  the  Law 
must  be  certain  and  general,  although  it  may  be  effective  in  some  cases  and 
ineffective  in  others.  If  the  Law  depended  on  the  varying  conditions  of 
man,  it  would  be  imperfect  in  its  totality,  each  precept  being  left  indefinite. 
For  this  reason  it  would  not  be  right  to  make  the  fundamental  principle*  of 
the  Law  dependent  on  a  certain  time  or  a  certain  place  ;  on  the  contr.iry, 
the  statutes  and  the  judgments  must  be  definite,  unconditional,  and  general, 
in  accordance  with  the  divine  words :  "  As  for  the  congregation,  one  ordi- 
nance shall  be  for  you  and  for  the  stranger  "  (Num.  xv.  15)  ;  they  arc  in- 
tended, as  has  been  stated  before,  for  all  persons  and  for  all  times. 

After  having  premised  these  introductory  remarks  I  will  now  proceed  to 
the  exposition  of  that  which  I  intended  to  explain 

CHAPTER  XXXV 

In  accordance  with  this  intention  I  find  it  convenient  to  divide  all  precepts 
into  fourteen  classes. 

The  first  class  comprises  those  precepts  which  form  fundamental  prin- 
ciples, such  as  we  have  enumerated  in  Hilkot  yesode  ha-torah.  Repentance 
and  fasts  belong  also  to  this  class,  as  will  be  shown. 

The  second  class  comprises  the  precepts  which  are  connected  with  the 
prohibition  of  idolatry,  and  which  have  been  described  by  us  in  Hilkot 
a'bodah-zarah.  The  laws  concerning  garments  of  linen  and  wool,  concern- 
ing the  fruit  of  trees  in  the  first  three  years  after  they  have  been  planted,  and 
concerning  divers  seeds  in  a  vineyard,  are  likewise  contained  in  this  class. 
The  object  of  these  precepts  is  to  establish  certain  true  principles  and  to 
perpetuate  them  among  the  people. 

The  third  class  is  formed  by  commandments  which  are  connected  with 
the  improvement  of  the  moral  condition  [of  mankind]  ;  these  are  mentioned 
in  Hilkot  de'ot.  It  is  known  that  by  a  good  moral  state  those  social  rela- 
tions, which  are  indispensable  for  the  well-being  of  mankind,  are  brought  to 
perfection. 

The  fourth  class  includes  precepts  relating  to  charity,  loans,  gifts,  and  the 
like,  e.g.,  the  rules  respecting  "  valuations,"  (scil.,  of  things  devoted  to  sacred 
purposes.  Lev.  xxvii.  1-27);  "  things  devoted  "  {ibid.  ver.  28) ;  laws  conccrni-  .• 
loans  and  servants,  and  all  the  laws  enumerated  in  the  section  Zeraim,  cxccj  i 
the  rules  of  "  mixtures  "  and  "  the  fruit  of  trees  in  the  first  three  yean." 
The  object  of  these  precepts  is  clear  ;  their  benefit  concerns  all  people  by 
turns ;  for  he  who  is  rich  to-day  may  one  day  be  poor— either  he  himself  or 
his  descendants ;  and  he  who  is  now  poor,  he  himself  or  his  son  may  be  rich 
to-morrow. 

The  fifth  class  contains  those  precepts  which  relate  to  the  prevention  of 
wrong  and  violence  ;  they  are  included  in  our  book  in  the  section  NezUin. 
Their  beneficial  character  is  evident. 

The  sixth  class  is  formed  of  precepts  respecting  fines,  e.g.,  the  law-s  on 
theft  and  robbery,  on  false  witnesses,  and  most  of  the  laws  contained  in  the 


330  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

section  Shofetim  belong  to  this  class.  Their  benefit  is  apparent ;  for  if 
sinners  and  robbers  were  not  punished,  injury  would  not  be  prevented  at  all  : 
and  persons  scheming  evil  would  not  become  rarer.  They  are  wrong  who 
suppose  that  it  would  be  an  act  of  mercy  to  abandon  the  laws  of  compensa- 
tion for  injuries ;  on  the  contrary,  it  would  be  perfect  cruelty  and  injury  to 
the  social  state  of  the  country.  It  is  an  act  of  mercy  that  God  commanded 
"judges  and  officers  thou  shalt  appoint  to  thee  in  all  thy  gates"  (Deut. 
xvi.  l8). 

The  seventh  class  comprises  those  laws  which  regulate  the  business  trans- 
actions of  men  with  each  other  ;  e.g.,  laws  about  loans,  hire,  trust,  buying, 
selling,  and  the  like  ;  the  rules  about  inheritance  belong  to  this  class.  We 
have  described  these  precepts  in  the  sections  Kinyan  and  Mishpatim.  The 
object  of  these  precepts  is  evident,  for  monetary  transactions  are  necessary 
for  the  peoples  of  all  countries,  and  it  is  impossible  to  have  these  transactions 
without  a  proper  standard  of  equity  and  without  useful  regulations. 

The  eighth  class  includes  those  precepts  which  relate  to  certain  days,  as 
Sabbaths  and  holydays  ;  they  are  enumerated  in  the  section  Zemannim. 
The  Law  states  clearly  the  reason  and  object  of  each  of  these  precepts  ;  they 
are  to  serve  as  a  means  for  establishing  a  certain  principle  among  us,  or 
securing  bodily  recreation,  or  effecting  both  things  at  the  same  time,  as  will 
be  shown  by  me. 

The  ninth  class  comprises  the  general  laws  concerning  religious  rites  and 
ceremonies,  e.g.,  laws  concerning  prayers,  the  reading  of  Shema',  and  the 
other  rules  given  in  the  section  Ahabah,  with  the  exception  of  the  law  con- 
cerning circumcision.  The  object  of  these  laws  is  apparent ;  they  all  pre- 
scribe actions  which  firmly  establish  the  love  of  God  in  our  minds,  as  also  the 
right  belief  concerning  Him  and  His  attributes. 

The  tenth  class  is  formed  of  precepts  which  relate  to  the  Sanctuary,  its 
vessels,  and  its  ministers ;  they  are  contained  in  the  section  'Abodah.  The 
object  of  these  precepts  has  already  been  mentioned  by  us  (jMpra,chap.xxxii.). 

The  eleventh  class  includes  those  precepts  which  relate  to  Sacrifices. 
Most  of  these  laws  we  have  mentioned  in  the  sections  'Abodah  and  Korba- 
not.  We  have  already  shown  the  general  use  of  the  sacrificial  laws,  and 
their  necessity  in  ancient  time. 

The  twelfth  class  comprises  the  laws  concerning  things  unclean  and  clean. 
The  general  object  of  these  laws  is,  as  will  be  explained  by  me,  to  discourage 
people  from  [frequently]  entering  the  Sanctuary  ;  in  order  that  their  minds 
be  impressed  with  the  greatness  of  the  Sanctuary,  and  approach  it  with  re- 
spect and  reverence. 

The  thirteenth  class  includes  the  precepts  concerning  forbidden  food  and 
the  like ;  we  have  given  them  in  Hilkot  maakalot  asurot ;  the  laws 
about  vows  and  temperance  belong  also  to  this  class.  The  object  of  all  these 
laws  is  to  restrain  the  growth  of  desire,  the  indulgence  in  seeking  that  which 
is  pleasant,  and  the  disposition  to  consider  the  appetite  for  eating  and  drink- 
ing as  the  end  [of  man's  existence].  We  have  explained  this  in  our  Com- 
mentary on  the  Mishnah,  in  the  Introduction  (chap,  iv.)  to  ^he  Sayings  of 
the  Fathers. 

The  fourteenth  class  comprises  the  precepts  concerning  forbidden  sexual 
they  are  given  in  the  section  Nashim  and  Hilkot  issure-biah. 


I 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  331 

The  laws  concerning  the  intermixture  of  cattle  belong  to  this  cliu.     The 
object  of  these  precepts  is  likewise  to  diminish  sexual  intercourse,  to  r    ■- 
as  much  as  possible  indulgence  in  lust,  and  [to  teach]  that  this  cnj 
is  not,  as  foolish  people  think,  the  final  cause  of  man's  existence.     Wc  have 
explained  this  in  our  Commentary  on  Thf  Sayings  nf  the  Fathers  (Inirod., 
chap.  viii.).     The  laws  about  circumcision  belong  to  this  class. 

As  is  well  known,  the  precepts  are  also  divided  into  two  classes,  viz.,  pre- 
cepts concerning  the  relation  between  man  and  God,  and  precepts  concerning 
the  relation  between  man  and  man.  Of  the  classes  into  which  we  divide 
the  precepts  and  wliich  we  have  enumerated,  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh, 
and  part  of  the  third,  include  laws  concerning  the  relation  of  man  to  man. 
The  other  classes  contain  the  laws  about  the  relation  of  man  to  Gfxi,  i.e., 
positive  or  negative  precepts,  which  tend  to  improve  the  mcjral  or  intellectual 
condition  of  mankind,  or  to  regulate  such  of  each  man's  actions  which 
[directly]  only  concern  him  and  lead  him  to  perfection.  For  these  arc  called 
laws  concerning  man's  relation  to  God,  although  in  reality  they  lead  to 
results  which  concern  also  his  fellow-men  ;  because  these  results  become 
only  apparent  after  a  long  series  of  intermediate  links,  and  from  a  general 
point  of  view ;  whilst  directly  these  laws  are  not  intended  to  prevent  man 
from  injuring  his  fellow-man.     Note  this. 

Having  described  the  laws  of  these  classes,  I  will  now  again  consider  the 
precepts  of  each  class,  and  explain  the  reason  and  use  of  those  which  arc  be- 
lieved to  be  useless  or  unreasonable,  with  the  exception  of  a  few,  the  object 
of  which  I  have  not  yet  comprehended. 

CHAPTER  XXXVI 

The  reason  of  all  precepts  of  the  first  class,  viz.,  of  the  principles  enumerated 
by  us  in  the  Hilkot  yesoie  ha-torah,  is  obvious.  Consider  them  one  by  one, 
and  you  will  find  that  the  lesson  which  every  one  of  tliem  contains  is  correct 
and  demonstrable.  It  is  also  evident  that  the  precepts  which  exhort  and 
command  us  to  learn  and  to  teach  are  useful ;  for  without  wisdom  there 
cannot  be  any  good  act  or  any  true  knowledge.  The  law  which  prescribe* 
to  honour  the  teachers  of  the  Law  is  likewise  useful  ;  for  if  they  were  not 
considered  by  the  people  as  great  and  honourable  men,  they  would  not  be 
followed  as  guides  in  their  principles  and  actions.  The  Law  demands  also 
that  we  be  humble  and  modest  [in  their  presence].  "  Thou  shall  rise  up 
before  the  hoary  head  "  (Lev.  xix.  32).  This  class  includes  also  the  com- 
mandment to  swear  by  the  name  of  God  and  the  prohibition  of  swearing 
falsely  or  in  vain.  The  reason  for  all  these  precepts  is  evident ;  they  aim  at 
the  glorification  of  God  ;  they  prescribe  acts  which  lead  to  the  belief  in  God's 
greatness.  Likewise  the  commandment  to  cry  to  God  in  time  of  trouble, 
"  to  blow  an  alarm  with  the  trumpets  "  (Num.  x.  9),  belongs  to  this  class. 
We  are  told  to  offer  up  prayers  to  God,  in  order  to  establish  firmly  the  true 
principle  that  God  takes  notice  of  our  ways,  that  He  can  make  them  success- 
ful if  we  worship  Him,  or  disastrous  if  we  disobey  Him,  that  [success  and 
failure]  are  not  the  result  of  chance  or  accident.  In  this  sense  we  muit 
understand  the  passage,  "  If  ye  walk  with  me  by  chance  "  (bekeri.  Lev.  xxvi. 
21)  ;    i.e.,  if  I  bring  troubles  upon  you  for  punishment,  and  you  consider 


332  GUIDE    FOR    THE   PERPLEXED 

them  as  mere  accidents,  I  will  again  send  you  some  of  these  accidents  as  you 
call  them,  but  of  a  more  serious  and  troublesome  character.  This  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  words :  "  If  ye  walk  with  me  by  chance  :  then  I  will  walk  with 
you  also  in  the  fury  of  chance  "  (ibid.  vers.  27,  28).  For  the  belief  of  the 
people  that  their  troubles  are  mere  accidents  causes  them  to  continue  in 
their  evil  principles  and  their  wrong  actions,  and  prevents  them  from  aban- 
doning their  evil  ways.  Comp.  "  Thou  hast  stricken  them,  but  they  have 
not  grieved  "  (Jer.  v.  3).  For  this  reason  God  commanded  us  to  pray  to 
Him,  to  entreat  Him,  and  to  cry  before  Him  in  time  of  trouble.  It  is  clear 
that  repentance  is  likewise  included  in  this  class ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  one  of 
those  principles  which  are  an  indispensable  element  in  the  creed  of  the 
followers  of  the  Law.  For  it  is  impossible  for  man  to  be  entirely  free  from 
error  and  sin  ;  he  either  does  not  know  the  opinion  which  he  has  to  choose, 
or  he  adopts  a  principle,  not  for  its  own  merits,  but  in  order  to  gratify  his 
desire  or  passion.  If  we  were  convinced  that  we  could  never  make  our 
crooked  ways  straight,  we  should  for  ever  continue  in  our  errors,  and  perhaps 
add  other  sins  to  them  since  we  did  not  see  that  any  remedy  was  left  to  us. 
But  the  belief  in  the  effect  of  repentance  causes  us  to  improve,  to  return  to 
the  best  of  the  ways,  and  to  become  more  perfect  than  we  were  before  we 
sinned.  For  this  reason  many  things  are  prescribed  for  the  promotion  of 
this  very  useful  principle  ;  e.g.,  confessions  and  sacrifices  for  sins  committed 
unknowingly,  and  in  some  cases  even  for  sins  committed  intentionally,  and 
fasts,  and  that  which  is  common  to  all  cases  of  repentance  from  sin,  the 
resolve  to  discontinue  sinning.  For  that  is  the  aim  of  this  principle.  Of  all 
these  precepts  the  use  is  obvious. 

CHAPTER    XXXVII 

The  precepts  of  the  second  class  are  those  which  we  have  enumerated  in  the 
section  "  On  idolatry."  It  is  doubtless  that  they  all  tend  to  save  man  from 
the  error  of  idolatry  and  the  evil  practices  connected  with  it ;  e.g.,  observing 
the  times,  enchantment,  witchcraft,  incantation,  consulting  with  familiar 
spirits,  and  the  like.  When  you  read  the  books  which  I  mentioned  to  you, 
you  vnll  find  that  witchcraft,  which  will  be  described  to  you,  is  part  of  the 
customs  of  the  Sabeans,  Kasdim,  Chaldeans,  and  to  a  higher  degree  of  the 
Egyptians  and  Canaanites.  They  caused  others  to  believe,  or  they  them- 
selves believed,  that  by  means  of  these  arts  they  would  perform  wonderful 
things  in  reference  to  an  individual  person,  or  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  whole 
country,  although  no  analogy  and  no  reasoning  can  discover  any  relation 
between  these  performances  of  the  witches  and  the  promised  result.  Thus 
they  are  careful  to  collect  certain  plants  at  a  particular  time,  and  to  take  a 
definite  number  of  certain  objects.  There  are  many  things  comprised  by 
wdtchcraft ;  they  may  be  divided  into  three  classes :  first,  witchcraft  con- 
nected vdth  objects  in  Nature,  viz.,  plants,  animals,  or  minerals.  Secondly, 
witchcraft  dependent  for  its  performance  on  a  certain  time  ;  and  thirdly, 
witchcraft  dependent  on  the  performance  of  certain  acts  of  man,  such  as 
dancing,  clapping,  laughing,  jumping  with  one  leg,  lying  on  the  ground  v/ith 
the  face  upward,  burning  a  thing,  fumigating  with  a  certain  material,  or 
speaking  intelligible  or  unintelligible  words. 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  333 

These  are  the  various  kinds  of  witchcraft.  In  some  cases  all  th«e  varioui 
performances  are  required.  Thus  the  witches  sometimes  order  :  take  a  leaf 
of  a  certain  plant,  when  the  moon  is  seen  in  a  certain  dc),'rcc  [of  the  Z'Kiiar] 
in  the  east  point  or  in  one  of  the  other  cardinal  points  [of  the  horizon],  alto 
a  certain  quantity  of  the  horn,  the  sweat,  the  hair  and  the  blood  of  a  certain 
animal  when  the  sun  is,  e.g.,  in  the  middle  of  the  sky,  or  in  some  other  de- 
finite place  ;  and  a  portion  of  a  certain  mineral  or  minerals,  melted  at  a 
certain  conjunction  of  sun  and  moon,  and  at  a  definite  position  of  the  sian  ; 
speak  then,  and  say  certain  words,  and  fumigate  with  those  leaves  or  similar 
ones  to  that  molten  image,  and  such  and  such  a  thing  will  happen.  In  oihcr 
instances  of  witchcraft  it  is  assumed  that  one  of  the  above  performances 
suffices.  In  most  cases  the  condition  is  added  that  women  must  perform 
these  actions.  Thus  it  is  stated  in  reference  to  the  means  of  obtaining  rain, 
that  ten  virgins  dressed  with  diadems  and  red  garments  should  dance,  push 
each  other,  moving  backwards  and  forwards,  and  make  signs  to  the  sun  :  the 
result  of  this  long  process  was  believed  [by  the  idolaters]  to  be  a  downpour 
of  rain. 

It  is  further  stated  that  if  four  women  lay  on  their  back,  with  their  feet 
spread  and  lifted  up,  said  certain  words  and  did  certain  things  whilst  in  this 
disgraceful  position,  hail  would  discontinue  coming  down  in  that  place. 
The  number  of  these  stupid  and  mad  things  is  great ;  in  all  of  them  without 
exception  women  are  required  to  be  the  agent.  Witchcraft  is  intimately 
connected  with  astrology ;  those  that  practise  it  assign  each  plant,  animal, 
or  mineral  to  a  certain  star,  and  believe  that  the  above  processes  of  witchcraft 
are  different  forms  of  worship  offered  to  that  star,  which  is  pleased  with  that 
act,  word,  or  offering  of  incense,  and  fulfils  their  wishes. 

After  this  remark,  which  you  will  understand  when  you  have  read  such 
of  their  works  as  are  at  present  extant,  and  have  been  mentioned  by  me,  hear 
what  I  will  tell  you.  It  is  the  object  and  centre  of  the  whole  Law  to  abolish 
idolatry  and  utterly  uproot  it,  and  to  overthrow  the  opinion  that  any  of  the 
stars  could  interfere  for  good  or  evil  in  human  matters,  because  it  leads  to  the 
worship  of  stars.  It  was  therefore  necessary  to  slay  all  witches  as  bcmg  un- 
doubtedly idolaters,  because  every  witch  is  an  idolater  ;  they  only  have  their 
own  strange  ways  of  worship,  which  are  different  from  the  common  mode  of 
worship  offered  to  those  deities.  But  in  all  performances  of  witchcraft  it  is 
laid  down  as  a  rule  that  women  should  be  employed  in  the  chief  operation  ; 
and  therefore  the  Law  says,  "  Thou  shaft  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live  "  (Fxod. 
xxii.  17).  Another  reason  is  the  natural  reluctance  of  people  to  slay  women. 
This  is  also  the  cause  why  in  the  law  of  idolatry  it  is  said  "  man  or  woman  " 
(Deut.  xvii.  2),  and  again  repeated  a  second  time,  "  the  man  or  the  woman  " 
(ibid.  ver.  5)— a  phrase  which  does  not  occur  in  the  law  about  the  breaking 
of  Sabbath,  or  in  any  other  law  ;  for  great  sympathy  is  naturally  shown  lo 
women.  Now  the  witches  believed  that  they  produced  a  ccrtam  result  by 
their  witchcraft ;  that  they  were  able  through  the  above-mentioned  acnons 
to  drive  such  dangerous  animals  as  lions,  serpents,  and  the  like  out  of  the 
cities,  and  to  remove  various  kinds  of  damage  from  the  products  of  the  earth. 
Thus'  they  imagine  that  they  are  able  by  certain  acts  to  prevent  hail  from 
coming  down,  and  by  certain  other  acts  to  kill  the  worms  m  the  vineyards. 
whereby  the  latter  are  protected  from  injury ;    in  fact,  the  kilhng  of  the 


334  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

worms  in  vinevards,  and  other  superstitions  mentioned  in  the  Nabatean 
Agriculture,  are  fully  described  by  the  Sabeans.  They  likewise  imagine  that 
they  know  certain  acts  by  which  they  can  prevent  the  dropping  of  leaves 
from  the  trees  and  the  untimely  falling  of  their  fruit.  On  account  of  these 
ideas,  which  were  general  in  those  days,  the  Law  declares  in  "  the  words  of 
the  covenant "  as  follows  :  The  same  idolatry  and  superstitious  perfor- 
mances which,  in  your  belief,  keep  certain  misfortunes  far  from  you,  will 
cause  those  very  misfortunes  to  befall  you.  "  I  will  also  send  wild  beasts 
among  you  "  (Lev.  xxvi.  22)  ;  "  I  will  also  send  the  teeth  of  wild  beasts  upon 
them,  with  the  poison  of  those  that  creep  in  dust  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  24).  "  The 
fruit  of  thy  land,  and  all  thy  labours,  shall  a  nation,  which  thou  knowest  not, 
eat  up  "  {ibid,  xxviii.  33).  "  Thou  shalt  plant  vineyards  and  dress  them, 
but  shalt  neither  drink  of  the  wine  nor  gather  the  grapes,  etc.  Thou  shalt 
have  olive  trees  throughout  all  thy  coasts,  but  thou  shalt  not  anoint  thysell 
with  the  oil  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  39,  40).  In  short,  in  spite  of  the  schemes  of 
idolaters  to  support  and  firmly  establish  their  doctrine,  and  to  make  people 
believe  that  by  idolatry  certain  misfortunes  could  be  averted  and  certain 
benefits  gained,  worship  of  idols  will,  on  fhe  contrary,  as  is  stated  in  "  the 
words  of  the  covenant,"  prevent  the  advantages  and  bring  the  troubles. 
The  reader  will  now  understand  why,  of  all  kinds  of  curses  and  blessings, 
those  mentioned  in  "  the  words  of  the  covenant  "  have  been  selected  by  the 
Law,  and  particularly  pointed  out.  Note  also  the  greatness  of  the  benefit 
[of  these  laws]. 

In  order  tliat  we  may  keep  far  from  all  kinds  of  witchcraft,  we  are  warned 
not  to  adopt  any  of  the  practices  of  the  idolaters,  even  such  as  are  connected 
with  agriculture,  the  keeping  of  cattle,  and  similar  work.  [The  Law  pro- 
hibits] everything  that  the  idolaters,  according  to  their  doctrine,  and  con- 
trary to  reason,  consider  as  being  useful  and  acting  in  the  manner  of  certain 
mysterious  forces.  Comp.  "  Neither  shall  ye  walk  in  their  ordinances " 
(Lev.  xviii.  3).  "  And  ye  shall  not  walk  in  the  manners  of  the  nation  which 
I  cast  out  before  you  "  {ibid.  xx.  23).  Our  Sages  call  such  acts  "  the  ways 
of  the  Amorite  "  ;  they  are  kinds  of  witchcraft,  because  they  are  not  arrived 
at  by  reason,  but  are  similar  to  the  performances  of  witchcraft,  which  is 
necessarily  connected  with  the  influences  of  the  stars  ;  thus  ["  the  manners 
of  the  nations  "]  lead  people  to  extol,  worship,  and  praise  the  stars.  Our 
Sages  say  distinctly,  "  whatever  is  used  as  medicine  "  does  not  come  under 
the  law  of  "  the  ways  of  the  Amorite  "  ;  for  they  hold  that  only  such  cures 
as  are  recommended  by  reason  are  permitted,  and  other  cures  are  prohibited. 
When,  therefore,  the  dictum  was  quoted  :  a  tree  that  casts  off  its  fruit  may 
be  laden  with  stone  or  dyed  with  red  colour,  the  following  objection  was 
raised  :  The  loading  of  the  tree  with  stones  may  be  justified  on  the  plea  that 
it  serves  to  weaken  the  strength  of  the  tree,  but  why  should  it  be  permitted 
to  dye  the  tree  with  red  colour  ?  This  question  shows  that  the  dyeing  of 
the  tree  with  red  colour,  and  all  similar  things  which  are  not  explained  by 
analogv  from  nature,  are  prohibited  as  "  ways  of  the  Amorite."  For  the 
same  reason  our  Sages  said,  "  The  uterus  of  animals  which  have  been  selected 
for  the  Sanctuary  must  be  buried  ;  it  must  not  be  suspended  from  a  tree, 
and  not  buried  in  the  cross-road,  because  this  is  one  of  '  the  ways  of  the 
Amorite.'  "     Hence  you  may  learn  how  to  treat  similar  cases. 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  335 

It  is  not  inconsistent  that  a  nail  of  the  gallows  and  the  tooth  of  a  foi  have 
been  permitted  to  be  used  as  cures ;  for  these  thintp  have  been  considered  in 
those  days  as  facts  established  by  experiment.  They  served  as  euro,  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  hanging  of  the  peony  over  a  person  subject  to  epileptic 
fits,  or  the  application  of  a  dog's  refuse  to  the  swellings  of  the  throat,  and  of 
the  vapours  of  vinegar  and  marcasitc  to  the  swelling  of  hard  tumours.  For 
the  Law  permits  as  medicine  everything  that  has  been  verified  by  experiment, 
although  it  cannot  be  explained  by  analogy.  The  above-named  cures  arc 
permitted  in  the  same  way  as  the  application  of  purgatives.  Learn,  reader, 
these  noteworthy  lessons  from  this  my  work,  and  keep  them  ;  "  for  they  arc 
a  diadem  of  grace  for  thy  head  "  (Prov.  iv.). 

We  have  explained  in  our  large  work  that  it  is  prohibited  to  round  the 
corners  of  the  head,  and  to  mar  the  corners  of  the  beard,  because  it  was  the 
custom  of  idolatrous  priests.  For  the  same  reason,  the  wearing  of  garments 
made  of  linen  and  wool  is  prohibited  ;  the  heathen  priests  adorned  them- 
selves with  garments  containing  vegetable  and  animal  material,  whilst  they 
held  in  their  hand  a  seal  made  of  a  mineral.  This  you  find  written  in  their 
books.  The  same  is  also  the  reason  of  the  precept,  "  The  woman  shall  not 
wear  that  which  pertaineth  unto  a  man  "  (Deut.  xxii.  5).  You  find  it  in  the 
book  Tomtom,  that  a  male  person  should  wear  coloured  woman's  dress  when 
he  stands  before  Venus,  and  a  female,  when  standing  before  Mars,  should 
wear  a  buckler  and  other  armour.  I  think  that  this  precept  has  also  another 
reason  ;  namely,  that  the  interchange  of  dress  creates  lust  and  leads  to  im- 
morality. 

It  is  easily  understood  why  it  is  prohibited  to  derive  any  benefit  whatever 
from  an  idol.    For  sometimes  a  person  buys  it  with  the  intention  to  break  it, 
but  keeps  it,  and  it  becomes  a  snare  to  him.     Even  if  he  broke  it,  recast  it, 
and  sold  it  to  a  heathen,  he  must  not  use  the  money  which  he  received  in 
exchange  for  the  idol ;  because  people  frequently  mistake  accidental  circum- 
stances for  essential  causes ;  thus  most  people  say  of  a  certain  person  that  he 
has  become  rich  and  wealthy  after  having  dwelt  in  a  certain  house,  or  bought 
a  certain  animal  or  vessel  ;  and  that  these  things  were  a  blessing  to  him.       n 
the  same  way  a  person  may  be  successful   and  make  a  good  profit  on  the 
business  in  which  he  employed  the  money  received  for  the  'J"' ;   he  miRht 
then  think  that  the  idol  was  the  cause  of  his  success,  and  that  the  blessing  of 
the  money  received  for  it  brought  him  the  profit ;   he  would  then  W.evc  m 
the  idol ;    a  belief  which  is  just  the  reverse  of  the  chief  object  of  the  l^w, 
as  is  clearlv  seen  in  every  word  of  it.     For  this  same  reason  we  are  forb.ddcn 
to  turn  to  our  use  the  covering  of  the  idol,  its  ofTerings  and  vessel,.     \Sc  arc 
thus  guarded  against  the  idea  [of  ascribing  our  success  to  idols].     In  those 
days  the  belief  in  the  stars  was  very  strong ;   it  was  generally  assumed  tha 
life  and  death,  good  and  evil,  depended  on  the  stars.     1  he  I'-  <:mrK.)aI 
therefore  strong  means,  as  covenant,  witnesses,  great  oath,   and    '-^l^-J- 
mentioned  [blessings  and]  curses,  in  order  to  overthrow  that  bj:hcf      V,  c  arc 
thus  commanded  to  abstain  from  taking  any  portion  of  the  idol  and  dcri  in, 
any  benefit  from  it ;    and  God  tells  us  that  if  money  received  for  idols  be 
mTxed  w?th  any  person's  property,  it  will  bring  loss  and  nun  to  that  rropcrty^ 
™    warning's' contained  in  the  words:    "Neither  J^ah  thou  bnn«  an 
abomination  into  thine   house,  lest  thou  be  a  cursed  thing  ULe  it     (Dcut. 


336  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

v'u.  26).  How  much  more  wrong  must  it  be  to  believe  that  there  is  a  blessing 
in  idols.  When  you  examine  all  the  precepts  that  relate  to  idolatry,  you  will 
find  that  their  reason  is  obvious,  and  [that  they  serve  to  make  us  abandon 
this  evil  belief,  and  keep  at  the  greatest  possible  distance  from  it. 

We  must  also  point  out  that  originators  of  false,  baseless,  and  useless  prin- 
ciples scheme  and  plan  for  the  firm  establishment  of  their  faith  ;  and  tell 
their  fellow-men  that  a  certain  plague  will  befall  those  who  will  not  perform 
the  act  by  which  that  faith  is  supported  and  confirmed  for  ever  ;  this  plague 
may  one  day  accidentally  befall  a  person,  who  will  then  direct  his  attention 
to  the  performance  of  that  act,  and  adopt  idolatry.  It  being  well  known 
that  people  are  naturally  most  in  fear  and  dread  of  the  loss  of  their  property 
and  their  children,  the  worshippers  of  fire  spread  the  tale,  that  if  any  one 
did  not  pass  his  son  and  daughter  through  the  fire,  he  will  lose  his  children 
by  death.  There  is  no  doubt  that  on  account  of  this  absurd  menace  every 
one  at  once  obeyed,  out  of  pity  and  sympathy  for  the  child  ;  especially  as  it 
was  a  trifling  and  a  light  thing  that  was  demanded,  in  passing  the  child  over 
the  fire.  We  must  further  take  into  account  that  the  care  of  young  children 
is  intrusted  to  women,  who  are  generally  weak-minded,  and  ready  to  believe 
everything,  as  is  well  known.  The  Law  makes,  therefore,  an  earnest  stand 
against  this  practice,  and  uses  in  reference  to  it  stronger  terms  than  in  any 
other  kind  of  idolatry ;  namely,  "  he  defileth  my  sanctuary,  and  profaneth 
my  holy  name  "  (Lev.  xx.  3).  The  true  prophet  then  declares  in  the  name 
of  God  that  the  very  act  which  is  performed  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the 
child  alive,  will  bring  death  upon  him  who  performs  it,  and  destruction  upon 
his  seed.  Comp.  "  And  I  will  set  my  face  against  that  man  and  against  his 
family,"  etc.  (ibid.  xx.  5).  Know  that  traces  of  this  practice  have  survived 
even  to  the  present  day,  because  it  was  widespread  in  the  world.  You  can 
see  how  midwives  take  a  young  child  wrapped  in  its  swaddling-clothes,  and 
after  having  placed  incense  of  a  disagreeable  smell  on  the  fire,  swing  the  child 
in  the  smoke  over  that  fire.  This  is  certainly  a  kind  of  passing  children 
through  the  fire,  and  we  must  not  do  it.  Reflect  on  the  evil  cunning  of  the 
author  of  this  doctrine  ;  how  people  continued  to  adhere  to  this  doctrine, 
and  how,  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  the  Law  during  thousands  of  years,  its 
name  is  not  blotted  out,  and  its  traces  are  still  in  existence. 

Idolaters  have  acted  similarly  in  reference  to  property.  They  made  it  a 
law  that  a  certain  tree,  the  asherah,  should  be  worshipped,  and  that  of  its 
fruit  one  part  should  be  oflPered,  and  the  rest  consumed  in  the  temple  of  the 
idol ;  this  is  stated  in  the  regulations  concerning  the  asherah.  In  the  same 
manner,  they  made  it  a  rule,  that  the  first-fruit  of  every  fruit-tree  should  be 
partly  offered  as  a  sacrifice  and  partly  consumed  in  the  idol's  temple.  It 
was  also  a  widespread  belief  that  if  the  first-fruit  of  any  tree  was  not  treated 
in  this  manner,  the  tree  would  dry  up,  its  fruit  would  be  cast  oflt,  its  increase 
would  be  diminished,  or  some  disease  would  come  over  it ;  just  as  they 
spread  the  belief  that  every  child,  that  was  not  passed  through  the  fire,  must 
die.  People  in  their  anxiety  for  their  property  obeyed  also  this  precept 
unhesitatingly.  The  Law,  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  commanded  us  to 
burn  the  produce  of  fruit-trees  the  first  three  years ;  for  some  trees  bear  fruit 
after  one  year,  whilst  some  begin  to  yield  fruit  after  two,  and  others  after 
three  years.    The  law  is  based  upon  the  nature  of  trees  grown  in  an  ordinary 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  337 

»vay,  namely,  in  one  of  tlie  three  well-known  methods  :  planting,  propaga- 
tion, and  inoculation  {netvah,  habrakah,  and  harcahah).  'I'hc  Law  doc«  not 
take  notice  of  the  case  that  a  kernel  or  stone  is  sown  ;  for  tlic  ordinantci  of 
the  Law  are  based  on  the  usual  condition  of  things,  and  as  a  rule  a  young 
tree  in  Palestine  bears  fruit  for  the  first  time  not  later  than  the  third  year 
after  it  has  been  planted.  According  to  the  divine  promise,  the  waste  and 
destruction  of  this  first-fruit  of  the  tree  will  be  followed  by  vcars  of  plenty 
of  fruit ;  for  it  is  said,  "  that  it  may  increase  unto  you  the  fruit  ihtn-of  " 
(Lev,  xix.  25).  The  fruit  of  the  fourth  year  we  are  commanded  to  cat  before 
God,  instead  of  [the  heathen  custom  of]  eating  'orlah,  "  the  fruit  of  the  pre- 
ceding years,"  in  the  temples  of  the  idols,  as  has  been  described  by  us. 

It  is  further  mentioned  in  the  Nabatean  Agriculture  that  the  ancient  idol- 
aters caused  certain  things  named  in  that  work  to  rot,  waited  till  the  sun 
stood  in  a  certain  degree  [of  the  ecliptic],  and  then  they  performed  many 
acts  of  witchcraft.  They  believed  that  that  substance  should  be  kept  ready 
by  every  one,  and  when  a  fruit-tree  is  planted,  a  portion  of  that  rotten  sub- 
stance should  be  scattered  round  the  tree  or  under  it ;  the  tree  would  then 
grow  quicker  and  produce  more  fruit  than  is  generally  the  case.  They  say 
that  this  process  is  very  extraordinary  ;  it  acts  like  a  talisman,  and  is  more 
efficient  than  any  kind  of  witchcraft  in  accelerating  the  productiveness  of 
fruit-trees.  I  have  already  shown  and  explained  to  you  how  the  Law  opposes 
all  kinds  of  witchcraft.  The  Law,  therefore,  prohibits  us  to  use  the  fruit 
yielded  by  a  tree  in  the  first  three  years  after  it  has  been  planted,  so  that 
there  should  be  no  opportunity  for  accelerating,  according  to  their  imagina- 
tion, the  productiveness  of  any  tree.  After  three  years  most  fruit-trct-s  in 
Palestine  yield  fruit  by  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  without  the  applicition 
of  those  magical  performances  which  were  very  general  in  those  days.  Note 
this  remarkable  fact. 

Another  belief  which  was  very  common  in  those  days,  and  survived  the 
Sabeans,  is  this  :  When  a  tree  is  grafted  into  another  in  the  time  of  a  certain 
conjunction  of  sun  and  moon,  and  is  fumigated  with  certain  substances 
whilst  a  formula  is  uttered,  that  tree  will  produce  a  thing  that  will  be  found 
exceedingly  useful.  More  general  than  anything  mentioned  by  the  heathen 
writers  was  the  ceremony  of  grafting  an  olive  branch  upon  a  citron  tree,  as  de- 
scribed in  the  beginning  of  the  Nabatean  Agriculture.  I  am  of  opinion  that  the 
book  of  medicines  which  Hezekiah  put  away  (  B.  T.  Pes.  -.Ua)  was  undoubtcUy 
of  this  kind.  They  also  said  that  when  one  species  is  grafted  upon  another,  the 
branch  which  is  to  be  grafted  must  be  in  the  hand  of  a  beautiful  damsel 
whilst  a  male  person  has  disgraceful  and  unnatural  sexual  intercourse  with 
her;  during  that  intercourse  the  woman  grafts  the  br-inch  '"J-yhe  tree. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  this  ceremony  was  general,  and  that  nobo^ly  refused 
to  perform  it,  especially  as  the  pleasure  of  love  was  added  to  the  (supposed) 
future  results  of  the  grafting.  The  Law,  therefore,  prohibits  us  to  mix 
different  species  together,  i.e.,  to  graft  one  tree  into  '""^f''^^.^""*^.^^ 
must  keep  away  from  the  opinions  of  idolaters  and  the  abominations  of  the.r 
unnatural  sexual  intercourse.  In  order  to  guard  against  the  g"'""S  °^ 
trees,  we  are  forbidden  to  sow  any  two  kinds  of  seed  together  or  near  each 
othe^.  When  vou  study  the  traditional  explanauon  of  this  precept,  you  w,U 
find  that  the  prohibition  of  grafting,  tlie  principal  element  in  this  comound- 


338  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ment,  holds  good  for  all  countries,  and  is  punishable  by  forty  stripes ;  but 
the  sowing  of  seeds  one  near  the  other  is  only  prohibited  in  Palestine.  In 
the  Nabaiean  Agriculture  it  is  further  distinctly  stated  that  it  was  the 
custom  of  the  people  in  those  days  to  sow  barley  and  stones  of  grapes  together, 
in  the  belief  that  the  vineyard  could  only  prosper  in  this  way.  Therefore 
the  Law  prohibits  us  to  use  seed  that  has  grown  in  a  vineyard,  and  commands 
us  to  burn  both  the  barley  and  the  produce  of  the  vineyard.  For  the  prac- 
tices of  the  heathen,  which  they  considered  as  of  a  magic  and  talismanic 
character,  even  if  not  containing  any  idolatrous  element,  are  prohibited,  as  we 
have  stated  above  (p.  334)  in  reference  to  the  dictum  of  our  Sages,  "  We  must 
not  hang  upon  a  tree  the  foetus  of  an  animal  belonging  to  tlie  Sanctuary." 
The  Law  prohibits  all  heathen  customs,  called  by  our  Sages  "  the  wavs  of 
the  Amorite,"  because  they  are  connected  with  idolatry.  On  considering 
the  customs  of  the  heathen  in  their  worship,  you  will  find  that  in  certain 
kinds  of  worship  they  turn  toward  stars,  in  others  to  the  two  great  lumi- 
naries ;  frequently  they  choose  the  rise  of  signs  in  the  Zodiac  for  sowing  and 
fumigating  ;  and  as  to  the  circuits  made  by  those  who  plant  or  sow,  some 
complete  five  circles,  corresponding  to  the  five  planets,  with  the  exclusion 
of  the  two  luminaries ;  others  go  seven  times  round,  according  to  the  number 
of  the  planets,  when  including  sun  and  moon.  They  believe  that  all  these 
practices  are  magic  charms  of  great  efficiency  in  agriculture.  Thus  those 
practices  lead  to  the  worship  of  stars ;  and  therefore  all  practices  of  those 
nations  have  been  prohibited,  in  the  words,  "  Ye  shall  not  walk  in  the  manners 
of  the  nation  which  I  cast  out  before  you  "  (Lev.  xx.  23).  Those  practices 
which  were  more  general  and  common,  or  were  distinctly  connected  with 
idolatry,  are  particularly  pointed  out  as  prohibited ;  e.g.,  eating  the  fruit 
of  a  tree  during  the  first  three  years,  intermixing  of  species  and  the  mixed 
species  sown  in  a  vineyard.  I  am  surprised  as  the  dictum  of  Rabbi  Joshiyah, 
which  has  been  adopted  as  legally  binding,  in  reference  to  the  mixed  seed  in 
a  vineyard,  viz.,  that  the  law  is  only  transgressed  when  wheat,  barley,  and  the 
stone  of  a  grape  are  sown  simultaneously.  He  must  undoubtedly  have  seen 
the  source  of  that  kind  of  the  ways  of  the  Amorite.  It  must  now  be  clear 
to  you,  and  no  room  can  be  left  for  any  doubt,  that  the  prohibition  of  wearing 
garments  of  wool  and  linen,  of  using  the  fruit  of  a  tree  in  the  first  three  years, 
and  of  mixing  divers  species,  are  directed  against  idolatry,  and  that  the  pro- 
hibition against  adopting  heathen  manners  serves  to  remove  anything  which 
leads  to  idolatry,  as  has  been  shown  by  us. 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII 

The  precepts  of  the  third  class  are  identical  with  those  which  we  have  enu- 
merated in  Hilkot  de'ot.  Their  use  is  evident ;  they  are  rules  concerning 
moral  conduct  by  which  the  social  relations  of  men  are  regulated.  This  is 
sufficiently  clear,  and  I  need  not  dwell  long  on  it.  Know  that  some  pre- 
cepts prescribe  certain  acts  which  are  considered  as  arbitrary  decrees  without 
any  purpose,  but  are  nevertheless  the  means  of  acquiring  some  moral  prin- 
ciple. We  shall  explain  every  one  of  them  in  its  proper  place.  But  of  all 
those  precepts  which  are  mentioned  in  Hilkot  de^ot,  it  is  distincdv  stated 
that  their  object  is  to  inculcate  good  moral  principles. 


THE  DIVINE  COM  MAN  DM  EM  IS  339 

CHAPTER  XXXIX 

The  precepts  in  the  fourth  class  include  the  laws  which  in  our  work  arc  con- 
tained in  the  section  Zcra'im,  excepting  the  laws  on  the  mixture  (.f  jpcuci  ; 
the  rules  about  things  to  be  "  valued  "  and  things  "  devoted  "  {Hilkot 
'erekin  va-haramitn),  and  those  concerning  lender  and  borrower  {Htlkot 
malveh  ve-loveh)  and  slaves  {Hilkot  •abadim).  When  you  examine  thcic 
precepts  you  will  clearly  see  the  use  of  every  one  of  them  :  they  teach  u»  to 
have  sympathy  with  the  poor  and  infirm,  to  assist  the  needy  in  various  ways  ; 
not  to  hurt  the  feelings  of  those  who  are  in  want,  and  not  to  vex  those  who 
are  in  a  helpless  condition  [viz.,  the  widow,  the  orphan,  and  the  like].  The 
purpose  of  the  laws  concerning  the  portions  which  are  to  be  given  to  the  jxxir 
is  likewise  obvious  ;  the  reason  of  the  laws  concerning  the  heavc-ofTcrings 
and  the  tithe  is  distinctly  stated  :  "  for  he  hath  no  portion  and  inheritance 
with  thee  "  (Deut.  xiv.  29).  You  certainly  know  that  the  Ix^vites  had  no 
portion,  because  their  whole  tribe  was  to  be  exclusively  engaged  in  the  service 
of  God  and  the  study  of  the  Law.  They  shall  not  plow  or  cut  the  corn, 
but  shall  only  minister  to  God.  "  They  shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judgments 
and  Israel  thy  law  :  they  shall  put  incense  before  thee  "  (Deut.  xxxiii.  10). 
In  the  Law  we  meet  frequently  with  the  phrase,  "  the  Levitc,  the  stranger, 
and  the  orphan  and  the  widow  "  ;  for  the  Levite  is  reckoned  among  the  poor 
because  he  had  no  property.  The  second  tithe  was  commanded  to  be  spent 
on  food  in  Jerusalem  ;  in  this  way  the  owner  was  compelled  to  give  part  of 
it  away  as  charity.  As  he  was  not  able  to  use  it  otherwise  than  by  way  of 
eating  and  drinking,  he  must  have  easily  been  induced  to  give  it  gradually 
away.  This  rule  brought  multitudes  together  in  one  place,  and  strengthened 
the  bond  of  love  and  brotherhood  among  the  children  of  men.  The  law 
concerning  the  fruit  of  a  tree  in  its  fourth  year  has  some  relation  to  idolatrous 
customs,  as  has  been  stated  by  us  (chap,  xxxvii.),  and  is  connected  with  the 
law  concerning  the  fruit  of  a  tree  in  its  first  three  years.  But  it  has  in  addi- 
tion the  same  object  as  the  law  concerning  the  heave-offering  (I)cut.  xviii. 
4),  the  dough-offering  (hallah)  (Num.  xv.  20),  the  first-fruit  (Exod.  xxiii. 
19),  and  the  first  of  the  shearing  (Deut.  xviii.  4).  For  the  first  of  cvcr)thing 
is  to  be  devoted  to  the  Lord  ;  and  by  doing  so  man  accustoms  himself  to  be 
liberal,  and  to  limit  his  appetite  for  eating  and  his  desire  for  property.  The 
same  is  the  reason  why  the  priest  took  the  shoulder,  the  t\vo  checks,  and  the 
maw  (Deut.  xviii.  3) ;  the  cheek  being  the  first  part  of  the  body  of  animals, 
the  right  shoulder  the  first  of  the  extremities  of  the  body,  and  the  maw  the 

first  of  all  inwards.  . 

The  reciting  of  a  certain  portion  of  the  Law  when  the  first-fruits  arc 
brought  to  the  temple,  tends  also  to  create  humility.  For  he  who  brings 
the  first-fruits  takes  the  basket  upon  his  shoulders  and  proclaims  the  kindnr** 
and  goodness  of  God.  This  ceremony  teaches  man  that  it  is  essential  in  the 
service  of  God  to  remember  the  times  of  trouble  and  the  history  of  past  dis- 
tress, in  days  of  comfort.  The  Law  lays  stress  on  this  duty  in  several  place*  ; 
comp.  "  And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  hast  been  a  slave,  etc.  (Deut 
v  I?)  For  it  is  to  be  feared  that  those  who  become  great  in  riches  and 
comfort  might,  as  is  generally  the  case,  fall  into  the  vices  of  insolence  and 
haughtiness,  and  abandon  all  good  principles.     Comp.      I/^t  thou  eat  and 


340  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

be  full,  etc.,  and  thine  heart  be  lifted  up  and  thou  forget  the  Lord  "  (ibid. 
viii.  12-14);  "And  Jeshurun  waxed  fat  and  kicked"  (ibid.  xxx.  15).  On 
account  of  this  fear  the  Law  commanded  us  to  read  each  year  a  certain  por- 
tion before  the  Lord  and  His  glory,  when  we  offer  the  first-fruit.  You  know 
how  much  the  Law  insists  that  we  shall  always  remember  the  plagues  that 
have  befallen  the  Egyptians  ;  comp.  "  That  thou  mayest  remember  the  day 
when  thou  earnest  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  all  the  days  of  thy  life  " 
{ibid.  xvi.  3)  ;  "  That  thou  mayest  tell  in  the  ears  of  thy  son  what  things  I 
have  wrought  in  Egypt  "  (Exod.  x.  2).  Such  a  law  was  necessary  in  order  to 
perpetuate  the  memory  of  the  departure  from  Egypt ;  because  such  events 
verify  prophecy  and  the  doctrine  of  reward  and  punishment.  The  benefit 
of  every  commandment  that  serves  to  keep  certain  miracles  in  remembrance, 
or  to  perpetuate  true  faith,  is  therefore  obvious. 

In  reference  to  the  law  concerning  the  first-born  of  man  and  cattle  it  is 
distinctly  said,  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Pharaoh  would  hardly  let  us 
go,  that  the  Lord  slew  all  the  first-born  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  etc.,  therefore 
I  sacrifice  to  the  Lord,"  etc.  (Exod.  xiii.  15).  But  it  can  easily  be  explained 
why  only  cattle,  sheep,  and  asses  are  mentioned  in  this  law  ;  these  are  kept 
as  domestic  animals,  and  are  found  in  most  places,  especially  in  Palestine, 
where  the  Israelites  were  shepherds,  they,  their  fathers,  and  forefathers ; 
comp.  "  Thy  servants  are  shepherds,  both  we  and  also  our  fathers  "  (Gen. 
xlvii.  3).  Horses  and  camels,  however,  are  not  wanted  by  shepherds,  and 
are  not  found  in  all  places  ;  thus  in  the  booty  of  Midian  (Num.  xxxi.)  no 
other  animals  are  mentioned  but  oxen,  sheep,  and  asses.  But  asses  alone  are 
indispensable  to  all  people,  especially  to  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  field 
or  in  the  forest.  Thus  Jacob  says,  "  I  have  oxen  and  asses  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  5). 
Camels  and  horses  are  not  possessed  by  many  people,  but  only  by  a  few,  and 
are  only  found  in  a  few  places.  The  law  that  the  first-born  of  an  ass  was  to 
have  its  neck  broken  [in  case  it  is  not  redeemed],  will  only  ensure  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  ass.  It  has,  therefore,  been  said  that  the  act  of  redeeming  the 
ass  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  breaking  its  neck. 

As  to  the  precepts  enumerated  in  the  laws  concerning  the  year  of  release 
and  the  jubilee  {Hilkot  shemittah  ve-yohel)  some  of  them  imply  sympathy 
with  our  fellow-men,  and  promote  the  well-being  of  mankind  ;  for  in  refer- 
ence to  these  precepts  it  is  stated  in  the  Law,  "  That  the  poor  of  thy  people 
may  eat  "  (Exod.  xxiii.  li)  ;  and  besides,  the  land  wiU  also  increase  its  pro- 
duce and  improve  when  it  remains  fallow  for  some  time.  Other  precepts 
of  this  class  prescribe  kindness  to  servants  and  to  the  poor,  by  renouncing  all 
claims  to  debts  [in  the  year  of  release],  and  relieving  the  slaves  of  their  bon- 
dage [in  the  seventh  year].  There  are  some  precepts  in  this  class  that  serve 
to  secure  for  the  people  a  permanent  source  of  maintenance  and  support  by 
providing  that  the  land  should  remain  the  permanent  property  of  its  owners, 
and  that  it  could  not  be  sold.  "  And  the  land  shall  not  be  sold  for  ever  " 
(Lev.  XXV.  23).  In  this  way  the  property  of  a  person  remains  intact  for  him 
and  his  heirs,  and  he  can  only  enjoy  the  produce  thereof.  I  have  thus  ex- 
plained the  reason  of  all  precepts  contained  in  our  work  in  the  Section  7,era'im, 
with  the  exception  of  the  laws  concerning  the  intermixture  of  different 
species  of  beasts  the  reason  of  which  will  be  given  (chap.  xlix.). 

In  the  same  manner  we  find  that  all  the  precepts  comprised  in  "  the  laws 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  ;,: 

on  valuations,"  and  ou  "  things  devoted  "  arc  based  on  the  principle  ol 
charity  ;  some  of  them  prescribe  what  should  be  given  to  the  pricsti  ;  othcn 
tell  us  what  must  be  devoted  to  the  repairs  of  the  temple.  The  practice  of 
all  these  things  accustoms  man  to  act  liberally  and  to  spend  money  unhcti- 
tatingly  to  the  glory  of  God.  For  it  is  in  the  nature  of  man  to  strive  in  gain 
money  and  to  increase  it ;  and  his  great  desire  to  add  to  his  wealth  and 
honour  is  the  chief  source  of  misery  for  man.  Also  the  precepts  contained 
in  "  the  laws  concerning  the  relation  bcf.veen  lender  and  borrower  "  {llil- 
kot  malveh  veloveh)  WiW  be  found,  on  being  carefully  examined,  to  be  nothing 
but  commands  to  be  lenient,  merciful  and  kind  to  the  needy,  not  to  deprive 
them  of  the  use  of  anything  indispensable  in  the  preparation  of  food.  "  No 
man  shall  take  the  nether  or  the  upper  millstone  to  pledge  :  for  he  takcth  a 
man's  life  to  pledge  "  (Deut.  xxiv.  6). 

The  precepts  contained  in  "  the  laws  concerning  slaves  "  {llilkot  'abadim), 
likewise  prescribe  only  acts  of  pity,  mercy  and   kindness  to  the  poor.       It 
is  an  act  of  mercy  to  give  liberty  to  a  Canaanite  servant  for  tlic  loss  of  one 
of  his  limbs  (Exod.  xxi.  26,  27),  in  order  that  he  should  not  suffer  from 
slavery  and  illness  at  the  same  time.     The  law  applies  even  to  the  case  that 
a  tooth  of  a  slave  has  been  knocked  out,  much  more  to  the  mutilation  of  other 
limbs.     He  could  only  be  corrected  with  a  rod  or  reed  or  the  like,  as  we  have 
stated  in  Mishneh-torah.     Besides,  if  the  master  strikes  the  slave  too  hard 
and  kills  him,  he  is  punished  with  death  as  for  ordinary  murder.     Mercy  is 
also  the  object  of  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  ser- 
vant that  is  escaped  from  his  master"  (Deut.  xxiii.   15);    but  it  teaches 
besides  a  very  useful  lesson,  namely,  that  we  must  always  practise  this  virtue, 
help  and  protect  those  who  seek  our  help,  and  not  deliver  them  unto  those 
from  whom  they  flee  ;   and  it  is  not  sufficient  to  give  assistance  to  those  who 
are  in  need  of  our  help  ;  we  must  look  after  their  interests,  be  kind  to  them, 
and  not  hurt  their  feeling  by  words.     Thus  the  Law  says :   "  He  shall  dwell 
with  thee,  even  among  you,  in  that  place  which  he  shall  choose  in  one  of  thy 
gates,  where  it  liketh  him  best :    thou  shalt  not  vex  him  "  {ibid.  ver.  16), 
This  we  owe  to  the  lowest  among  men,  to  the  slave  ;  how  much  more  must 
we  do  our  duty  to  the  freeborn,  when  they  seek  our  assistance  ?     But,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  sinners  and  evildoers  seek  our  help,  it  must  not  be  granted  ; 
no  mercy  must  be  shown  to  them,  and  the  course  of  justice  must  not  be  inter- 
fered with,  even  if  they  claim  the  protection  of  that  which  is  r.  -d 
highest;    for  "Thou  shalt  take  him  from  mine  altar  that  he  i...._.    .....■" 

(Exod.  xxi.  14).  Here  a  person  comes  to  seek  the  help  of  God,  and  claims 
the  protection  of  that  which  is  devoted  to  his  name  ;  God,  however,  does 
not  help  him,  and  commands  thatrfie  be  delivered  up  to  the  pr  '    m 

whom  he  fled.     Much  less  need  any  one  of  us  help  or  pity  i..  '-n 

[under  such  circumstances]  ;  because  mercy  on  sinners  is  cruelty  to  all  crea- 
tures. These  are  undoubtedly  the  right  ways  designated  "  righteous  statutes 
and  judgments  "  (Deut.  iv.  8),  and  different  from  the  ways  of  the  '  ■  ••mo 
consider  a  person  praiseworthy  when  he  helps  and  protects  his  \  ^  n, 
without  discriminating  between  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed.  1  h»»  u 
well  known  from  their  words  and  songs. 

The  reason  and  usefulness  of  every  preceot  of  this  class  has  thus  been 

clearlv  demonstrated. 


342  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  XL 

The  precepts  of  the  htth  class,  enumerated  in  the  Section  "  On  Damages  " 
{Sepher  nczil:in),Am.  at  the  removal  of  wrong  and  the  prevention  of  injury. 
As  we  are  strongly  recommended  to  prevent  damage,  we  are  responsible  for 
every  damage  caused  by  our  property  or  through  our  work  in  so  far  as  it  is  in 
our  power  to  take  care  and  to  guard  it  from  becoming  injurious.  We  are, 
therefore,  responsible  for  all  damage  caused  by  our  cattle  ;  we  must  guard 
them.  The  same  is  the  case  with  fire  and  pits ;  they  are  made  by  man,  and 
he  can  be  careful  that  they  do  not  cause  damage.  I  will  point  out  the  equity 
of  the  various  laws  in  this  respect.  No  compensation  is  enforced  for  damage 
caused  by  the  mouth  or  the  foot  of  an  animal  in  a  public  thoroughfare  ;  be- 
cause this  cannot  be  guarded  against,  and  the  damage  caused  there  is  not 
very  large.  Those  who  place  their  things  in  a  public  place  are  themselves 
guilty  of  neglect,  and  expose  their  property  to  injury.  But  compensation 
is  given  for  damage  caused  to  the  property  of  a  person  in  his  own  field  by  the 
tooth  or  the  foot  of  an  animal.  It  is  different  in  the  case  of  damage  caused 
by  the  horn  of  animals  or  the  like.  The  animal  can  be  guarded  everywhere 
[and  prevented  from  causing  injury],  whilst  those  who  pass  public  thorough- 
fares cannot  sufficiently  take  care  against  accidents  of  this  kind.  In  this  case 
the  law  is  the  same  for  all  places  ;  but  there  is  a  difference  whether  the  owner 
of  the  animal  has  been  warned  concerning  it  or  not  {mw ad  ox  tarn).  If  the 
animal  has  not  been  in  the  habit  of  causing  damage,  the  owner  need  only 
pay  half  the  damage  ;  but  damage  caused  by  an  animal  which  has  been  in 
the  habit  of  doing  so,  and  has  been  known  as  savage,  must  be  paid  in  full. 
The  compensation  for  a  slave  is  uniformly  estimated  at  half  the  value  fixed 
for  a  free  man.  For  in  the  law  concerning  the  valuation  of  man  you  find 
the  highest  valuation  at  sixty  shekels,  whilst  the  money  to  be  paid  for  a  slave 
is  fixed  at  thirty  shekels  silver.  The  killing  of  an  animal  that  has  killed  a 
human  being  (Exod.  xxi.  28,  29)  is  not  a  punishment  to  the  animal,  as  the 
dissenters  insinuate  against  us,  but  it  is  a  fine  imposed  on  the  owner 
of  that  animal.  For  the  same  reason  the  use  of  its  flesh  is  prohibited.  The 
owner  of  an  animal  will,  therefore,  take  the  greatest  possible  care  in  guarding 
it ;  he  will  know  that  if  any  person  is  killed  by  the  animal,  whether  that  person 
be  grown  up  or  young,  free  or  in  bondage,  he  forfeits  at  least  the  animal ; 
and  in  case  he  has  already  received  a  warning  concerning  it,  he  will  have  to 
pay  a  ransom  in  addition  to  the  loss  of  the  animal.  This  is  also  the  reason 
why  a  beast  is  killed  that  has  been  used  by  a  human  being  for  an  immoral 
purpose  (Lev.  xx.  15,  16)  ;  its  owner  will  be  more  careful  as  regards  his  beast, 
will  guard  it,  and  never  lose  sight  of  it,  just  as  he  watches  his  household : 
for  people  fear  the  loss  of  their  property  as  much  as  that  of  their  own  life  ; 
some  even  more,  but  most  people  hold  both  in  the  same  estimation. 
Comp.  "  and  to  take  us  for  bondmen,  and  our  asses  "  (Gen.  xliii.  18). 

This  class  includes  also  the  duty  of  killing  him  who  pursues  another  per- 
son ;  that  is  to  say,  if  a  person  is  about  to  commit  a  crime  we  may  prevent  it 
by  killing  him.  Only  in  two  cases  is  this  permitted  ;  viz.,  when  a  person  runs 
after  another  in  order  to  murder  him,  or  in  order  to  commit  fornication  ; 
because  in  these  two  cases  the  crime,  once  committed ;  cannot  be  remedied. 
In  the  case  of  other  sins,  punished  with  death  by  the  court  of  law,  such  as 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  343 

idolatry  and  profanation  of  the  Sabbath,  by  which  the  sinner  doc»  no  harm 
to  another  person,  and  which  concern  only  his  own  principles,  no  i>crv.t,  nuv 
be  killed  for  the  mere  intention,  if  he  has  not  carried  it  out. 

It  is  known  that  desire  is  denounced  because  it  leads  to  covet; 
latter  is  prohibited  because  it  leads  to  robbery,  as  has  been  said  I, 

The  object  of  the  law  of  restoring  lost  property  to  its  owner  (Deui.  xxii. 
1-3)  is  obvious.  In  the  first  instance,  it  is  in  itself  a  good  feature  in  man'* 
character.  Secondly,  its  benefit  is  mutual  ;  for  if  a  person  does  not  return 
the  lost  property  of  his  fellow-raan,  nobody  will  restore  to  him  what  he  nuy 
lose,  just  as  those  who  do  not  honour  their  parents  cannot  expect  to  be 
honoured  by  their  children. 

A  person  who  killed  another  person  unknowingly  must  go  into  exile  (Exod. 
xxi.  13  ;  Num.  xxxv.  11-28)  ;  because  the  anger  of  "  the  avenger  of  the 
blood  "  (Num.  xxxv.  19)  cools  down  while  the  cause  of  the  mischief  is  out  of 
sight.  The  chance  of  returning  from  the  exile  depends  on  the  death  of  [the 
high-priest],  the  most  honoured  of  men,  and  the  friend  of  all  Israel.  By 
his  death  the  relative  of  the  slain  person  becomes  reconciled  {ibid,  vcr,  25)  ; 
for  it  is  a  natural  phenomenon  that  we  find  consolation  in  our  misfortune 
when  the  same  misfortune  or  a  greater  one  has  befallen  another  person. 
Amongst  us  no  death  causes  more  grief  than  that  of  the  high -priest. 

The  beneficial  character  of  the  law  concerning  "  the  breaking  of  the  neck 
of  a  heifer  "  (Deut.  xxi.  1-8)  is  evident.  For  it  is  the  city  that  is  nearest  to 
the  slain  person  that  brings  the  heifer,  and  in  most  cases  the  murderer  comes 
from  that  place.  The  elders  of  the  place  call  upon  God  as  their  witness, 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  our  Sages,  that  they  have  always  kept  the 
roads  in  good  condition,  have  protected  them,  and  have  directed  every  one 
that  asked  his  way ;  that  the  person  has  not  been  killed  because  they  were 
careless  in  these  general  provisions,  and  they  do  not  know  who  has  slain  him. 
As  a  rule  the  investigation,  the  procession  of  the  elders,  the  measuring,  and 
the  taking  of  the  heifer,  make  people  talk  about  it,  and  by  making  the  event 
public,  the  murderer  may  be  found  out,  and  he  who  knows  of  him,  or  has 
heard  of  him,  or  has  discovered  him  by  any  clue,  will  now  name  the  person 
that  is  the  murderer,  and  as  soon  as  a  man,  or  even  a  woman  or  handmaid, 
rises  up  and  names  a  certain  person  as  having  committed  the  murder,  the 
heifer  is  not  killed.  It  is  well  known  that  it  is  considered  great  wickedncM 
and  guilt  on  the  part  of  a  person  who  knows  the  murderer,  and  is  silent  about 

him  whilst  the  elders  call  upon  God  as  witness  that  they  know  not! •  -'-  -ul 

the  murderer.     Even  a  woman  will,  therefore,  communicate  wh.it  w- 

ledge  she  has  of  him.  When  the  murderer  is  discovered,  the  benefit  of  the 
law  is  apparent.  If  the  court  of  justice  cannot  sentence  him  to  death,  the 
king  may  find  him  guilty,  who  has  the  power  to  sentence  to  death  on  circum- 
stantial evidence  ;  and  if  the  king  does  not  put  him  to  death,  the  avenger  of 
blood  may  scheme  and  plan  his  death,  and  at  last  kill  him.  We  have  thus 
shown  the  use  of  the  law  concerning  the  breaking  of  the  neck  of  the  heifer 
in  discovering  the  murderer  Force  is  added  to  the  law  by  the  rule  that  the 
place  in  which  the  neck  of  the  heifer  is  broken  should  never  be  cultivated  or 
sown.  The  owner  of  the  land  will  therefore  use  all  means  in  his  p<.wcr  tc 
search  and  to  find  the  murderer,  in  order  that  the  heifer  be  not  killed  and  hij 
land  be  not  made  useless  to  him. 


344  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

CHAPTER  XLI 

The  precepts  of  the  sixth  class  comprise  the  different  ways  of  punishing  the 
sinner.  Their  general  usefulness  is  known  and  has  also  been  mentioned  by 
us.  I  will  here  describe  them  one  by  one  and  point  out  their  nature  in 
detail. 

The  punishment  of  him  who  sins  against  his  neighbour  consists  in  the 
'general  rule  that  there  shall  be  done  unto  him  exactly  as  he  has  done  :   if  he 
injured  any  one  personally,  he  must  suffer  personally  ;    if  he  damaged  the 
property  of  his  neighbour,  he  shall  be  punished  by  loss  of  property.     But  the 
person  whose  property  has  been  damaged  should  be  ready  to  resign  his  claim 
totally  or  partly.     Only  to  the  murderer  we  must  not  be  lenient  because  of 
the  greatness  of  his  crime  ;  and  no  ransom  must  be  accepted  of  him.     "  And 
the  land  cannot  be  cleansed  of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein  but  by  the  blood 
of  him  that  shed  it  "  (Num.  xxxi.  33).     Hence  even  if  the  murdered  person 
continued  to  live  after  the  attack  for  an  hour  or  for  days,  was  able  to  speak 
and  possessed  complete  consciousness,  and  if  he  himself  said,  "  Pardon  my 
murderer,  I  have  pardoned  and  forgiven  him,"  he  must  not  be  obeyed.     We 
must  take  life  for  life,  and  estimate  equally  the  life  of  a  child  and  that  of  a 
grown-up  person,  of  a  slave  and  of  a  freeman,  of  a  wise  man  and  of  a  fool. 
For  there  is  no  greater  sin  than  this.     And  he  who  mutilated  a  limb  of  his 
neighbour,  must  himself  lose  a  limb.     "  As  he  hath  caused  a  blemish  in  a 
man,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  him  again  "  (Lev.  xxiv.  20).     You  must  not  raise 
an  objection  from  our  practice  of  imposing  a  fine  in  such  cases.     For  we  have 
proposed  to  ourselves  to  give  here  the  reason  for  the  precepts  mentioned  in 
the  Law,  and  not  for  that  which  is  stated  in  the  Talmud.     I  have,  however, 
an  explanation  for  the  interpretation  given  in  the  Talmud,  but  it  will  be 
communicated  viva  voce.     Injuries  that  cannot  be  reproduced  exactly  in 
another  person,  are  compensated  for  by  payment ;    "  only  he  shall  pay  for 
the  loss  of  his  time,  and  shall  cause  him  to  be  thorouglily  healed  "  (Exod. 
xxi.  19).     If  any  one  damaged  the  property  of  another,  he  must  lose  exactly 
as  much  of  his  own  property  :    "  whom  the  judges  shall  condemn  he  shall 
pay  double  unto  his  neighbour  "  (Exod.  xxii.  8);    namely,  he  restores  that 
which  he  has  taken,  and  adds  just  as  much  [to  it]  of  his  own  property.     It  is 
right  that  the  more  frequent  transgressions  and  sins  are,  and  the  greater  the 
probability  of  their  being  committed,  the  more  severe  must  their  punish- 
ment be,  in  order  to  deter  people  from  committing  them  ;    but  sins  which 
are  of  rare  occurrence  require  a  less  severe  punishment.     For  this  reason  one 
who  stole  a  sheep  had  to  pay  twice  as  much  as  for  other  goods,  i.e.,  four  times 
the  value  of  the  stolen  object ;  but  this  is  only  the  case  when  he  has  disposed 
of  it  by  sale  or  slaughter  (Exod.  xxi.  37).     As  a  rule,  the  sheep  remained  al- 
ways in  the  fields,  and  could  therefore  not  be  watched  so  carefully  as  things 
kept   in  town.     The  thief  of  a  sheep  used  therefore  to  sell  it  quickly  before 
the  theft  became  known,  or  to  slaughter  it  and  thereby  change  its  appear- 
ance.    As  such  theft  happened  frequently,  the  punishment  was  severe.     The 
compensation  for  a  stolen  ox  is   still  greater  by  one-fourth,  because  the 
theft  is  easily  carried  out.     The  sheep  keep  together  when  they  feed,  and 
can  be  watched  by  the  shepherd,  so  that  theft  when  it  is  committed  can  only 
take  place  by  night.     But  oxen  when  feeding  are  very  widely  scattered, 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  345 

as  is  also  mentioned  in  the  Nabatean  Agriculture,  and  a  shepherd  cannot 
watch  them  properly  ;  theft  of  oxen  is  therefore  a  more  frequent  occur- 
rence. 

The  law  concerning  false  witnesses  (Deut.  xix.  19)  prescribes  that  thcv 
shall  suffer  exactly  the  same  loss  which  they  intended  to  inflict  upon  another. 
If  they  intended  to  bring  a  sentence  of  death  against  a  person,  they  are  killed  ; 
if  they  aimed  at  the  punishment  of  stripes,  they  receive  stripes ;  and  if  ihcy 
desire  to  make  a  person  pay  money,  they  are  sentenced  to  pay  exactly  the 
same  sum.  The  object  of  all  these  laws  is  to  make  the  punishment  equal  to 
the  crime  ;  and  it  is  also  on  this  account  that  the  judgments  arc  "  rightcrjui  " 
(Deut.  iv.  8).  A  robber  with  violence  is  not  ordered  to  pay  anything  as  fine 
(Lev.  V.  24)  ;  the  additional  fifth  part  [of  the  value  of  the  robbed  goods]  is 
only  an  atonement-offering  for  his  perjury.  The  reason  of  this  rule  is  to  be 
found  in  the  rare  occurrence  of  robbery  ;  theft  is  committed  more  fre- 
quently than  robbery,  for  theft  can  be  committed  everywhere  ;  robbery  is 
not  possible  in  towns,  except  with  difficulty  ;  besides,  the  thief  takes  things 
exposed  as  well  as  things  hidden  away  ;  robbery  applies  only  to  things  ex- 
posed ;  against  robbery  we  can  guard  and  defend  ourselves  ;  wc  cannot  do 
so  against  theft ;  again,  the  robber  is  known,  can  be  sought,  and  forced  to 
return  that  which  he  has  robbed,  whilst  the  thief  is  not  known.  On  account 
of  all  these  circumstances  the  law  lines  the  thief  and  not  the  robber. 

Preliminary  Remark. — Whether  the  punishment  is  great  or  small,  the 
pain  inflicted  intense  or  less  intense,  depends  on  the  following  four  con- 
ditions. 

1.  The  greatness  of  the  sin.  Actions  that  cause  great  harm  arc  punished 
severely,  whilst  actions  that  cause  little  harm  are  punished  less  severely. 

2.  The  frequency  of  the  crime.  A  crime  that  is  frequently  committed 
must  be  put  down  by  severe  punishment ;  crimes  of  rare  occurrence  may 
be  suppressed  by  a  lenient  punishment  considering  that  they  arc  rarely 
committed. 

3.  The  amount  of  temptation.  Only  fear  of  a  severe  punishment  restrains 
us  from  actions  for  which  there  exists  a  great  tempt-ition,  cither  because  wc 
have  a  great  desire  for  these  actions,  or  are  accustomed  to  them,  or  fe-.I  un- 
happy without  them. 

4.  The  facility  of  doing  the  thing  secretly,  and  unseen  and  unnotiied. 
From  such  acts  we  are  deterred  only  by  the  fear  of  a  great  and  terrible 
punishment. 

After  this  preliminary  remark,  I  say  that  the  precepts  of  the  Law  may  be 
divided  into  the  following  four  classes  with  respect  to  the  punishment  for 
their  transgression  :— (i)  Precepts  whose  transgression  is  followed  by  sen- 
tence of  death  pronounced  by  a  court  of  law.  (2)  Precepts  whose  trans- 
gression is  punished  with  excision,  such  transgression  being  held  to  be  a 
very  great  sin.  (3)  In  some  cases  the  transgression  is  ]  '  !  bv 
stripes  administered  with  a  strap  (such  transgression  not  being  •  'd  a 

grievous  sin,  as  it  concerns  only  a  simple  prohibition)  ;  or  by  "  death  by  Hea- 
ven." (4)  Precepts  the  transgression  of  which  is  not  punished  [even]  by 
stripes.  Prohibitions  of  this  kind  are  all  those  that  involve  no  act.  But 
there  are  the  following  exceptions  :  [First],  Swearing  f.ils«.-ly.  because  it  is 
gross  neglect  of  man's  duty,  who  ought  to  bear  constantly  in  mind  the  great  - 


346  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

ness  of  God.  [Secondly],  Changing  an  animal  devoted  to  the  sanctuary  for 
another  (Lev.  xxvii.  lo),  because  this  change  leads  to  contemning  sacrifices 
devoted  to  the  name  of  God.  [Thirdly],  Cursing  a  person  by  the  name  of 
God  (ibid.  six.  14)  ;  because  many  dread  the  effect  of  a  curse  more  than 
bodily  harm.  The  transgression  of  other  negative  commandments  that 
involve  no  act  causes  little  harm,  and  cannot  always  be  avoided,  as  it  consists 
in  mere  words  ;  moreover,  man's  back  would  be  inflicted  with  stripes  all  the 
year  round  if  he  were  to  be  punished  with  stripes  for  each  transgression  of 
this  kind.  Besides,  previous  warning  is  impossible  in  this  case.  There  is 
also  wisdom  in  the  number  of  stripes ;  for  although  the  number  of  their 
maximum  is  given,  there  is  no  fixed  number  how  many  are  to  be  applied  to 
each  person ;  each  man  receives  only  as  many  stripes  as  he  can  bear,  but 
not  more  than  forty  (Deut.  xxv.  3),  even  if  he  be  strong  enough  for  a  hun- 
dred. 

The  "  death  by  the  court  of  law  "  is  not  inflicted  for  the  transgression  of 
any  of  the  dietary  laws ;   because  in  such  a  case  no  great  harm  is  done,  and 
the  temptation  of  man  to  transgress  these  laws  is  not  so  great  as  the  temp- 
tation to  the  enjoyment  of  sexual  intercourse.     In  some  of  the  dietary  laws 
the  punishment  is  excision.     This  is  the  case  with  the  prohibition  of  eating 
blood  (Lev.  xvii.  26).     For  in  ancient  days  people  were  very  eager  and  anx- 
ious to  eat  blood  as  a  kind  of  idolatrous  ceremony,  as  is  explained  in  the  book 
Tomtom,  and  therefore  the  prohibition  of  eating  blood  is  made  very  stringent. 
Excision  is  also  the  punishment  for  eating  fat ;   because  people  enjoy  it,  and 
because  it  was  distinguished  and  sanctified  by  its  use  in  the  offerings.     The 
eating  of  leavened  bread  on  Passover  (Exod.  xii.  15),  and  breaking  the  fast 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev.  xxiii.  29),  are  likewise  punished  with  ex- 
cision :  [first]  on  account  of  the  great  discomfort  which  the  obedience  to  the 
law  causes  in  these  cases ;   [secondly]  on  account  of  the  principles  of  faith 
which  the  laws  of  Passover  and  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  inculcate  :    they 
confirm  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law,  viz.,  the  belief  in  the  wonderful 
departure  [of  Israel]  from  Egypt,  and  in  the  effect  of  repentance,  according 
to  the  words,  "  For  on  this  day  will  he  forgive  you  "  (Lev.  xvi.  31).     Just 
as  in  the  case  of  eating  fat,  so  is  excision  also  announced  as  a  punishment  when 
a  person  eats  that  which  is  left  [of  a  sacrifice  beyond  its  limited  time],  or 
partakes  of  a  sacrifice  which  has  been  made  abominable  ;  or  when  an  unclean 
person  eats  of  holy  things  {ibid.  vii.  16-21).     The  object  of  this  severity  is 
to  increase  the  estimation  of  the  offering  in  the  eyes  of  the  people,  as  has 
been  shown. 

Death  by  the  court  of  law  is  decreed  in  important  cases :  when  faith  is 
undermined,  or  a  great  crime  is  committed,  viz.,  idolatry,  incest,  murder, 
or  actions  that  lead  to  these  crimes.  It  is  further  decreed  for  breaking  the 
Sabbath  (Exod.  xxxi.  15)  ;  because  the  keeping  of  Sabbath  is  a  confirmation 
of  our  beUef  in  the  Creation  ;  a  false  prophet  and  a  rebellious  elder  are  put 
to  death  on  account  of  the  mischief  which  they  cause  ;  he  who  strikes  his 
father  or  his  mother  is  killed  on  account  of  his  great  audacity,  and  because 
he  undermines  the  constitution  of  the  family,  which  is  the  foundation  of  the 
state.  A  rebellious  and  disobedient  son  is  put  to  death  (Deut.  xxi.  18  seq.)  on 
account  of  what  he  might  become,  because  he  will  likely  be  a  murderer  ;  he 
who  steals  a  human  being  is  killed,  because  he  is  also  prepared  to  kill  him 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  347 

whom  he  steals  (Exod.  xxi.  \6).  Likewise  he  who  is  founJ  brcakiiijj  into  a 
house  is  prepared  for  murder  (iOiJ.  xxii.  i),  as  our  Sages  stated.  These  three, 
the  rebellious  and  disobedient  son,  he  who  steals  and  sells  a  human  being] 
and  he  who  breaks  into  a  house,  become  murderers  in  the  course  of  time,  u 
is  well  known.  Capital  punishment  is  only  decreed  for  these  scrioui  crimct, 
and  in  no  other  case.  Not  all  forbidden  sexual  intercourse  is  visited  with 
the  penalty  of  death,  but  only  in  those  cases  in  which  the  criminal  act  can 
easily  be  done,  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  is  base  and  disj^TaccfuI,  and  of  a 
tempting  character  ;  otlierwisc  excision  is  tiie  punishment.  Likewise  not 
all  kinds  of  idolatry  are  capital  crimes,  but  only  the  principal  acts  of  idolatry, 
such  as  praying  to  an  idol,  prophesying  in  its  name,  passing  a  child  through 
the  fire,  consulting  with  familiar  spirits,  and  acting  as  a  wizard  or  witch. 

As  punishments  and  judgments  are  evidently  indispensable,  it  was  necessary 
to  appoint  judges  throughout  the  country  in  every  town  ;  witnesses  must 
be  heard ;  and  a  king  is  required  whom  all  fear  and  respect,  who  is  able 
to  restrain  the  people  by  various  means,  and  who  can  strengthen  and  sup- 
port the  authority  of  the  judges.  Although  I  have  shown  the  reason  of  all 
the  laws  contained  in  "  the  Section  of  Judges  "  {Seffr  Shofetim),  I  find  it 
necessary,  in  accordance  with  the  object  of  this  treatise,  to  explain  a  few  of 
these  laws,  e.g.,  the  laws  concerning  a  rebellious  elder. 

God  knew  that  the  judgments  of  the  Law  will  always  require  an  extension 
in  some  cases  and  curtailment  in  others,  according  to  the  variety  of  places, 
events,  and  circumstances.  He  therefore  cautioned  against  such  increase 
and  diminution,  and  commanded,  "  Thou  shalt  not  add  thereto  nor  diminish 
from  it "  (Deut.  xiii.  i)  ;  for  constant  changes  would  tend  to  disturb  the 
whole  system  of  the  Law,  and  would  lead  people  to  believe  that  the  Law  is 
not  of  Divine  origin.  But  permission  is  at  the  same  lime  given  to  the  wise 
men,  i.e.,  the  great  court  (Synhcdrion)  of  every  generation  to  make  fences  round 
the  judgments  of  the  Law  for  their  protection,  and  to  introduce  bye-laws 
(fences)  in  order  to  ensure  the  keeping  of  the  Law.  Such  fences  once  crcc  ted 
remain  in  force  for  ever.  The  Mishnah  therefore  teachc-s  :  "  And  make  a 
fence  round  the  Law"  (Abot  i.  l).  In  the  same  manner  they  have  the 
power  temporarily  to  dispense  with  some  religious  act  prescribed  in  the  Law, 
or  to  allow  that  which  is  forbidden,  if  exceptional  circumstances  and  events 
require  it ;  but  none  of  the  laws  can  be  abrogated  permanently,  as  has  been 
explained  by  us  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Mishnah  in 
treating  of  temporary  legislation.  By  this  method  the  Law  will  remain 
perpetually  the  same,  and  will  yet  admit  at  all  times  and  under  all  circum- 
stances such  temporary  modifications  as  are  indispensable.  If  every  scholar 
had  the  power  to  make  such  modifications,  the  multitude  of  disputes  and 
differences  of  opinion  would  have  produced  an  injurious  effect.  Therefore 
it  was  commanded  that  of  the  Sages  only  the  great  Synhedrion,  and  none  else, 
should  have  this  power  ;  and  whoever  would  oppose  their  decision  should 
be  killed.  For  if  any  critic  were  allowed  to  dispute  the  decision  of  the  Syn- 
hedrion, the  object  of  tliis  law  would  not  be  attained  ;  it  would  be  uwlcss. 

Transgressions  may  be  divided  into  four  classes,  viz.— <l)  involuntary 
transgressions,  (2)  sins  committed  in  ignorance,  (3)  sins  done  knowingly,  and 
(4)  sins  done  spitefully.  He  who  sins  involuntarily  is,  according  to  the  dis- 
tinct declaration  of  the  Law,  exempt  from  punishment,  and   free  from  all 


348  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

blame  ;  comp.  "  Unto  the  damsel  thou  shalt  do  nothing  ;  there  is  in  the 
damsel  no  sin  worthy  of  death  "  (Deut.  xxii.  26).  If  a  person  sins  in  ignor- 
ance, he  is  blamable  ;  for  if  he  had  been  more  considerate  and  careful,  he 
would  not  have  erred.  Although  he  is  not  punished,  his  sin  must  be  atoned 
for,  and  for  this  reason  he  brings  a  sin-offering.  The  Law  distinguishes  in 
this  respect  between  a  private  person  and  a  king,  a  high-priest  or  Teacher  of 
Halakah.  Hence  we  conclude  that  a  person  who  acts  wrongly,  or  who 
teaches  wrongly,  guided  by  his  own  reasoning — except  in  the  case  of  the 
great  Synhedrion  or  the  high-priest — is  treated  as  mezid  (as  one  who  sins 
knowingly),  and  does  not  belong  to  the  category  of  shogegim  (of  those  who 
sin  by  error).  A  rebellious  elder  is  therefore  put  to  death,  although  he  acted 
and  taught  according  to  his  view.  But  the  great  Synhedrion  must  teach 
according  to  its  opinion,  and  if  the  opinion  is  wrong,  the  sin  is  considered  as 
due  to  error.  In  reference  to  such  a  case  the  Law  says,  "  And  if  the  whole 
congregation  of  Israel  err,^^  etc.  (Lev.  iv.  13).  It  is  on  this  principle  that  our 
Sages  say,  "  The  error  in  learning  amounts  to  intentional  sin  "  (Abot  iv. 
13)  ;  he  who  has  studied  insufficiently,  and  teaches  and  acts  according  to 
his  defective  knowledge,  is  to  be  considered  as  if  he  sinned  knowingly.  For 
if  a  person  eats  of  the  fat  of  the  kidneys  in  the  belief  that  it  is  the  fat  of  the 
rump,  his  error  is  not  so  grave  as  the  error  of  him  who,  eating  of  the  fat  of 
the  kidneys,  knows  that  it  is  that  fat,  but  is  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  it  is  pro- 
hibited. The  latter  brings  a  sin-offering  although  he  is  almost  an  inten- 
tional transgressor.  But  this  is  only  the  case  as  far  as  he  acts  according  to 
his  knowledge  ;  but  if  he  decides  a  religious  question  [wrongly],  he  is  un- 
doubtedly an  intentional  sinner.  The  Law  admits  the  plea  of  error  in  a 
religious  decision  only  in  the  case  of  the  great  Synhedrion. 

He  who  has  sinned  knowingly  must  pay  the  penalty  prescribed  in  the  Law  ; 
he  is  put  to  death  or  receives  stripes,  or — for  transgression  of  prohibitions 
not  punishable  by  stripes — other  corporal  punishment,  or  pays  a  fine.  There 
are  some  sins  for  which  the  punishment  is  the  same,  whether  they  have  been 
committed  knowingly  or  unknowingly  ;  because  they  are  frequent,  and  are 
easily  done,  consisting  only  in  the  utterance  of  words,  and  involving  no  action 
besides ;  e.g.,  false  swearing  by  witnesses,  or  by  trustees.  Intercourse  with 
a  betrothed  handmaid  is  likewise  easy  and  frequent ;  she  is  exposed  unpro- 
tected, being  in  reality  neither  handmaid  nor  a  free  person,  nor  a  married 
woman,  according  to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  this  precept. 

If  a  person  sins  presumptuously,  so  that  in  sinning  he  shows  impudence 
and  seeks  publicity,  if  he  does  not  sin  only  to  satisfy  his  appetite,  if  he  does 
what  is  prohibited  by  the  Law,  not  only  because  of  his  evil  inclinations,  but 
in  order  to  oppose  and  resist  the  Law,  he  "  reproacheth  the  Lord  "  (Num. 
XV.  30),  and  must  undoubtedly  be  put  to  death.  None  will  act  in  such  a 
manner  but  such  as  have  conceived  the  idea  to  act  contrary  to  the  Law. 
According  to  the  traditional  interpretation,  therefore,  the  above  passage 
speaks  of  an  idolater  who  opposes  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law ; 
for  no  one  worships  a  star  unless  he  believes  [ — contrary  to  the  teachings  of 
Scripture — ^]  that  the  star  is  eternal,  as  we  have  frequently  stated  in  our  work. 
I  think  that  the  same  punishment  [viz.,  sentence  of  death]  applies  to  everj'^ 
sin  which  involves  the  rejection  of  the  Law,  or  opposition  to  it.  Even  if  an 
Israelite  eats  meat  [boiled]  in  milk,  or  wears  garments  of  wool  and  linen,  or 


rUE  niVINF,  rOMMANDMl-NTS  34., 

rounds  the  corners  of  his  head,  out  of  spite  agninst  the  I.iw,  in  order  to  ihow 
clearly  that  he  does  not  believe  in  its  truth,  I  apply  to  him  the  wonU,  "  he 
reproachcth  the  Lord,"  and  [I  am  of  opinion]  that  he  must  suffer  death  tt 
an  unbeliever,  though  not  for  a  punishment,  but  in  the  same  manner  it  the 
inhabitants  of  a  "  city  misled  to  idolatry  "  arc  slain  for  their  unbelief,  and 
not  by  way  of  punishment  for  crime  ;  wherefore  their  property  ii  deiiroycd 
by  fire,  and  is  not  given  to  their  heirs,  as  is  the  case  with  the  property  ■  '  ' 
criminals  condemned  to  death.  According  to  my  opinion,  all  the  men. 
an  Israelitish  community  which  has  insolently  and  presumptuously  tran»- 
gressed  any  of  the  divine  precepts,  must  be  put  to  death.  This  is  proved  by 
the  history  of  "  the  sons  of  Reuben  and  the  sons  of  Gad  "  (Josh,  xxii.), 
against  whom  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  decided  to  make  war.  When 
warning  was  given  to  the  supposed  offenders,  it  was  explained  to  them  tlut 
they  had  relinquished  their  faith,  because  by  agreeing  to  transgress  one  par- 
ticular law  they  rejected  the  truth  of  the  whole  Law.  For  they  were  ad- 
dressed as  follows :  "  What  trespass  is  this  that  ye  have  committed  against 
the  God  of  Israel,  to  turn  away  this  day  from  following  the  Lord  ?  "  (joth. 
xxii.  16)  ;  and  they  replied  :  "  The  Lord  knoweth,  etc.,  if  it  bo  in  rebellion, 
or  if  in  transgression  against  the  Lord."  etc.  {ibid.  22).  Take  well  notice  of 
these  principles  in  respect  to  punishments. 

The  Section  on  Judges  includes  also  the  commandment  to  blot  out  the 
memory  of  Amalek  (Deut.  xxv.  17-19).  In  the  same  way  as  one  individual 
person  is  punished,  so  must  also  a  whole  family  or  a  whole  nation  be  pun- 
ished, in  order  that  other  families  shall  hear  it  and  be  afraid,  and  not  accustom 
themselves  to  practise  mischief.  For  they  will  say,  we  m.iy  suffer  in  the 
same  way  as  those  people  have  suffered  ;  and  if  there  be  found  among  them 
a  wicked,  mischievous  man,  who  cares  neither  for  the  evil  he  bring*  upon 
himself  nor  for  that  which  he  causes  to  others,  he  will  not  find  in  his  family 
any  one  ready  to  help  him  in  his  evil  designs.  As  Amalek  was  the  first  to 
attack  Israel  with  the  sword  (Exod.  xvii.  8-16),  it  was  commanded  to  blot 
out  his  name  by  means  of  the  sword;  whilst  Ammon  and  Moab,  who  have  not 
been  friendly  simply  from  meanness,  and  have  caused  them  injury  1 
were  only  punished  by  exclusion  from  intermarriage  with  the  Isr..-..'..  . 
from  their  friendship.  All  these  things  which  God  has  commanded  *i  a 
punishment  are  not  excessive  nor  inadequate,  but,  as  is  distinctly  stated, 
"  according  to  the  fault  "  (Deut.  xxv.  2). 

This  section  contains  also  the  law  concerning  preparing  "  a  place  without 
the  camp,"  and  "  having  a  paddle  upon  the  weapon  "  (Deut.  xxiii.  Ii,  13). 
As  I  have  told  you,  it  is  one  of  the  objects  of  the  Law  to  train  Israel  tn  clean- 
liness ;  that  they  should  keep  free  from  dirt  and  filth,  and  that  men  should 
not  be  degraded  to  the  condition  of  cattle.  Another  object  of  this  law  is  10 
confirm  by  these  preparations  the  belief  of  the  warrion  that  G«k1  dwells  in 
their  midst.     The  reason  of  the  law  is  therefore  stated  thus  :  "  F  I    *  ' 

thy  God  walkcth  in  the  midst  of  thy  camp  "  {tbiJ.  ver.  14).     1 
oi  this  reason  gave  occasion  to  add  another  lesson  :  "  That  he  see  no  unclean 
thing  in  thee  and  turn  away  from  thee  "  {tU.).     These  words  warn  and 
caution  us  against  the  usual  inclination  of  soldiers  to  formcatr  -.  -  --n  they 
are  away  from  their  homes  a  long  time.     God  therefore  co:  1  us  to 

do  certain  things  which  remind  us  that  He  is  in  our  midst  ;  we  wUl  thereby 


350  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

be  saved  from  those  evil  practices  ;  as  it  is  said,  "  and  thy  camp  shall  be  holy» 
that  he  see  no  unclean  thing  in  thee  "  (ibid.).  Even  those  wlio  are  unclean 
by  pollution  were  compelled  to  stop  outside  the  camp  till  the  evening,  and 
"  then  he  shall  come  into  the  camp  again."  It  vidll  thus  be  confirmed  in 
the  heart  of  every  one  of  the  Israelites  that  their  camp  must  be  like  a  sanc- 
tuary of  the  Lord,  and  it  must  not  be  like  the  camps  of  the  heathen,  whose 
sole  object  is  corruption  and  sin ;  who  only  seek  to  cause  injury  to  others 
and  to  take  their  property ;  whilst  our  object  is  to  lead  mankind  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God,  and  to  a  good  social  order.  I  have  told  you  already  that  I  only 
propose  to  give  here  such  reasons  as  are  apparent  from  the  text  of  the  Law. 

To  the  same  class  belongs  also  the  law  concerning  "  the  marriage  of  a 
captive  woman  "  (Deut.  xxi.  lo  seq.).  There  is  a  well-known  saying  of  our 
Sages :  "  This  law  is  only  a  concession  to  human  weakness."  This  law 
contains,  nevertheless,  even  for  the  nobler  class  of  people,  some  moral  lessons 
to  which  I  wall  call  your  attention.  For  although  the  soldier  may  be  over- 
come by  his  desire  which  he  is  unable  to  suppress  or  to  restrain,  he  must  take 
the  object  of  his  lust  to  a  private  place,  "  into  the  inner  of  his  house  "  (Deut. 
xxi.  12),  and  he  is  not  permitted  to  force  her  in  the  camp.  Similarly  our 
Sages  say,  that  he  may  not  cohabit  vidth  her  a  second  time  before  she  leaves 
oflE  her  mourning,  and  is  at  ease  about  her  troubles.  She  must  not  be  pre- 
vented from  mourning  and  crying,  and  she  must  be  permitted  to  abstain 
from  bathing,  in  accordance  with  the  words,  "  and  she  shall  weep  for  her 
father  and  for  her  mother  "  (ibid.)  ;  for  mourners  find  comfort  in  crying 
and  in  excitement  till  the  body  has  not  sufficient  strength  to  bear  the  inner 
emotions ;  in  the  same  manner  as  happy  persons  find  rest  in  various  kinds  of 
play.  Thus  the  Lord  is  merciful  to  her  and  gives  her  permission  to  continue 
her  mourning  and  weeping  till  she  is  worn  out.  You  know  certainly  that  he 
married  her  as  a  heathen,  and  that  during  the  thirty  days  she  openly  keeps 
her  religion  and  even  continues  her  idolatrous  practices ;  no  interference 
with  her  faith  was  allowed  during  that  time ;  and  after  all  that  she  could  not 
be  sold,  nor  treated  as  a  handmaid,  if  she  could  not  be  induced  to  accept  the 
statutes  of  the  Law.  Thus  the  Law  does  not  ignore  the  cohabitation  of  the 
Israelite  with  the  captive  woman,  although  it  involved  disobedience  to  God 
to  some  extent,  having  taken  place  when  she  was  still  a  heathen.  The  Law 
prescribes :  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  merchandise  of  her,  because  thou  hast 
humbled  her  "  (ibid.  14).  We  have  thus  shown  the  moral  lessons  contained 
in  these  laws,  and  we  have  explained  the  reason  of  every  precept  of  this 
section. 

CHAPTER  XLII 

The  precepts  of  the  seventh  class  are  the  civil  laws  enumerated  in  the  Section 
on  Judgments,  and  part  of  the  Section  on  Property.  The  object  of  these 
precepts  is  obvious.  They  define  the  ways  of  equity  in  the  various  trans- 
actions which  must  take  place  between  man  and  man.  Those  that  are  en- 
gaged in  such  transactions  must  mutually  promote  each  other's  interests  ; 
neither  of  the  parties  must  strive  to  increase  only  his  own  profit,  and  that  he 
alone  should  enjoy  the  whole  benefit  of  the  transaction.  In  the  first  place, 
no  overcharge  is  permitted  ;  only  the  ordinary  and  known  rate  of  profit  may 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  351 

be  taken.     The  law  fixes  the  limits  of  profits  within  which  the  irx        •     1 

is  valid.     Even  imposition  in  mere  words  [where  no  maicrijl  har; 

flicted]  is  forbidden,  as  is  well  known.     Next  comes  the  law  of  the  four  kinJi 
of  bailees ;   the  fairness  of  the  law  is  evident.     If  one  keeps  the  property  of 
his  neighbour  for  nothing,  without  deriving  therefrom  any  1    ■    '  •  •      '  ; 
self,  and  is  only  obliging  his  neighbour,  he  is  free  from  all  x<.   .  .       ; 

if  any  injury  is  done  to  the  property,  the  owner  alone  must  bear  ihc  low. 
He  who  borrows  a  thing  keeps  it  only  for  his  own  advantage,  whiUt  the 
owner  lends  it  to  him  to  oblige  him  ;  he  is  therefore  responsible  for  every- 
thing ;  any  loss  in  the  property  must  be  borne  by  the  borrower.  If  one 
takes  wages  for  keeping  the  property  or  pays  for  using  it,  he  as  well  as  the 
owner  profit  thereby  ;  the  losses  must  therefore  be  divided  between  them. 
It  is  done  in  this  manner  ;  the  bailee  pays  for  any  loss  caused  through  want 
of  care,  namely,  when  the  property  is  stolen  or  lost ;  for  this  happens  only 
when  the  bailee  does  not  take  sufficient  precaution.  The  owner,  on  the  other 
hand,  bears  such  losses  as  cannot  be  prevented  ;  namely,  if  by  accident  the 
animal  falls  and  breaks  its  limbs,  or  is  carried  away  by  armed  men  as  btxjiy, 
or  if  it  dies.  The  Law  further  ordains  merciful  conduct  towards  hired  work- 
men because  of  their  poverty.  Their  wages  should  be  paid  without  delay, 
and  they  must  not  be  wronged  in  any  of  their  rights ;  they  must  receive  their 
pay  according  to  their  work.  Another  instance  of  kindness  to  workmen  is 
this  :  according  to  the  regulations  of  this  law,  workmen,  and  even  animals, 
must  be  permitted  to  partake  of  the  food  in  the  preparation  of  which  they 
have  been  engaged.  The  laws  which  relate  to  property  include  laws  con- 
cerning inheritance.  They  are  based  on  the  sound  principle  that  man  must 
not  "  withhold  good  from  those  to  whom  it  is  due  "  (Prov.  iii.  27),  and  when 
he  is  about  to  die,  he  must  not  conceive  ill-will  against  his  heirs,  by  squan- 
dering his  property,  but  leave  it  to  the  one  who  has  the  greatest  claim  on  it, 
that  is,  to  him  who  is  his  nearest  relation,  "  unto  his  kinsman  that  is  next  to 
him  of  his  family  "  (Num.  xxvii.  1 1).  It  is  clearly  stated  that  th- 
first  claim,  then  comes  the  daughter,  then  the  brother,  and  then  :.. 
brothers,  as  is  well  known.  The  father  must  leave  the  right  of  the  first-born 
to  his  eldest  son,  because  his  love  for  this  son  came  first ;   he  must  not  be 

guided  by  his  inclination.     He  may  not  make  the  son  of  the  belovr  >  

born  before  the  son  of  the  hated  (Deut.  xxi.  16).     Thus  our  highly  c 

Law  preserves  and  strengthens  the  virtue  of  respecting  all  kinsmen,  and  doing 

well  unto  them,  as  the  prophet  says :    "  He  that  is  cruel  troublcth  " 

flesh  "  (Prov.  xi.  17).     The  Law  correctly  says,  "  Thou  shalt  open  th:;.-  : 

wide  unto  thy  brother,  unto  thy  poor  "  (Deut.  xv.  ll).  Our  Sages  bestow 
much  praise  upon  him  who  is  kind  to  his  relatives,  and  him  who  mamcs  the 
daughter  of  his  sister.     The  Law  has  taught  us  how  far  we  hav    •  '. 

this  principle  of  favouring  those  who  are  near  to  us,  and  of  tn 
every  one  with  whom  we  have  some  relationship,  even  if  he  offended  or 
wronged  us ;  even  if  he  is  very  bad,  we  must  have  some  consideration  for 
him  Thus  the  Law  says :  "  Thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  F.domite.  for  he  u 
thy  brother  "  {ibtd.  xxiii.  7).  Again,  if  we  find  a  person  in  trouble  whose 
assistance  we  have  once  enjoyed,  or  of  whom  we  have  received  some  benefit, 
even  if  that  person  has  subsequently  done  evil  to  us,  we  must  bear  in  r 
his  previous  [good]  conduct.     Thus  the  Law  tells  us :  "  'I  hou  shalt  not  a.      . 


352  GUIDE   FOR    THE   PERPLEXED 

an  Egyptian,  because  thou  wast  a  stranger  in  his  land  "  (ibid.),  although  the 
Egyptians  have  subsequently  oppressed  us  very  much,  as  is  well-known.  See 
how  many  moral  lessons  we  have  derived  from  these  precepts.  The  last 
two  precepts  do  not  belong  to  the  seventh  class ;  but  the  discussion  of  the 
preference  due  to  relatives  as  regards  inheritance  led  us  to  speak  of  the 
Egyptians  and  the  Edomites. 


CHAPTER    XLIII 

The  precepts  of  the  eighth  class  are  enumerated  in  "the  Section  on 
Seasons"  {Sefer  zemannim).  With  a  few  exceptions,  the  reasons  for  all  of 
them  are  stated  in  the  Law.  The  object  of  Sabbath  is  obvious,  and  requires 
no  explanation.  The  rest  it  affords  to  man  is  known  ;  one-seventh  of  the  life 
of  every  man,  whether  small  or  great,  passes  thus  in  comfort,  and  in  rest  from 
trouble  and  exertion.  This  the  Sabbath  effects  in  addition  to  the  perpetu- 
ation and  confirmation  of  the  grand  doctrine  of  the  Creation.  The  object 
of  the  Fast  of  Atonement  is  evident.  The  Fast  creates  the  sense  of  repent- 
ance ;  it  is  the  same  day  on  which  the  chief  of  all  prophets  came  down  [from 
Mount  Sinai]  with  the  second  tables,  and  announced  to  the  people  the  divine 
pardon  of  their  great  sin  ;  the  day  was  therefore  appointed  for  ever  as  a  day 
devoted  to  repentance  and  true  worship  of  God.  For  this  reason  all  material 
enjoyment,  all  trouble  and  care  for  the  body,  are  interdicted,  no  work  may 
be  done  ;  the  day  must  be  spent  in  confession  ;  ever"  one  shall  confess  his 
sins  and  abandon  them. 

Other  holy  days  are  appointed  for  rejoicing  and  for  such  pleasant  gather- 
ing as  people  generally  need.  They  also  promote  the  good  feeling  that 
men  should  have  to  each  other  in  their  social  and  political  relations.  The 
appointment  of  the  special  days  for  such  purposes  has  its  cause.  The  reason 
for  the  Passover  is  well  known.  It  is  kept  seven  days,  because  the  period  of 
seven  davs  is  the  unit  of  time  intermediate  between  a  day  and  a  month.  It 
is  also  known  how  great  is  the  importance  of  this  period  in  Nature,  and  in 
many  religious  duties.  For  the  Law  always  follows  Nature,  and  in  some 
respects  brings  it  to  perfection  ;  for  Nature  is  not  capable  of  designing  and 
thinking,  whilst  the  Law  is  the  result  of  the  wisdom  and  guidance  of  God, 
who  is  the  author  of  the  intellect  of  all  rational  beings.  This,  however,  is 
not  the  theme  of  the  present  chapter  ;  let  us  return  to  our  subject. 

The  Feast  of  Weeks  is  the  anniversary  of  the  Revelation  on  Mount  Sinai. 
In  order  to  raise  the  importance  of  this  day,  we  count  the  days  that  pass  since 
the  preceding  festival,  just  as  one  who  expects  his  most  intimate  friend  on  a 
certain  day  counts  the  days  and  even  the  hours.  This  is  the  reason  why  we 
count  the  days  that  pass  since  the  offering  of  the  Omer,  between  the  anni- 
versary of  our  departure  from  Egypt  and  the  anniversary  of  the  Lawgiving. 
The  latter  was  the  aim  and  object  of  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  thus  God 
said,  "  I  brought  you  unto  myself  "  (Exod.  xix.  4).  As  that  great  revelation 
took  place  only  on  one  day,  so  we  keep  its  anniversary  only  one  day  ;  but  if 
the  eating  of  unleavened  bread  on  Passover  were  only  commanded  for  one 
day,  we  should  not  have  noticed  it,  and  its  object  would  not  have  been  mani- 
fest.    For  it  frequently  happens  that  we  take  the  same  kind  of  food  for  two 


THE  DIVINE  COMMANDMENTS  353 

or  three  days.     But  by  our  continuing  for  a  whole  period  [of  ,evcn  d.„l  ,0 

eat  unleavened  bread,  us  object  becomes  clear  and  VvidenS  ^^ 

JNew-Year  is  likewise  kept  for  one  dav  •    f^r  it  •'«  •,    >,.,    'i 
which  we  are  stirred  up  frL  our  f:rg:[f;in::s      FoVllJ,';!."^"'"^-''  ^" 
IS  blown  on  this  day,  as  we  have  shown  in  Mishnch-torah      1 
were,  a  preparation  [for  and  an  introduction  to  theday  of  the  Fa.t,a.uob»i: 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  is  a  feast  of  rejoicing  and  gladnea.  U  kept 
seven  days,  in  order  that  the  idea  of  the  festival  may  be  more  no.icc.blc 
The  reason  why  it  ,s  kept  in  the  autumn  is  stated  in  the  Law.  "  When  thou' 
hast  gathered  in  thy  labours  out  of  the  field  "  (Exod.  xxiii.  16)  •  that  is  to 
say  when  you  rest  and  are  free  from  pressing  labours.  Aristotle,  in  the  ninth 
book  of  his  Ethics,  mentions  this  as  a  general  custom  among  the  nationi 
Me  says  :  In  ancient  times  the  sacrifices  and  assemblies  of  the  people  took 
place  after  the  ingathering  of  the  corn  and  the  fruit,  as  if  the  »jciifices  were 
offered  on  account  of  the  harvest."  Another  reason  is  this— in  this  wrason 
It  is  possible  to  dwell  in  tabernacles,  as  there  is  neither  great  heat  nor  trouble- 
some rain. 

The  two  festivals,  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  imply  also  the 
teaching  of  certain  truths  and  certain  moral  lessons.  Passover  teaches  ui  to 
remember  the  miracles  which  God  wrought  in  Egypt,  and  to  perpetuate  thdr 
memory ;  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  reminds  us  of  the  miracles  wrought  in 
the  wdlderness.  The  moral  lessons  derived  from  these  feasts  is  this :  man 
ought  to  remember  his  evil  days  in  his  days  of  prosperity.  If  "  -licrcby 
be  induced  to  thank  God  repeatedly,  to  lead  a  modest  and  hu:  .     \\'c 

eat,  therefore,  unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs  on  Passover  in  memory  of 
what  has  happened  unto  us,  and  leave  [on  Succoth]  our  houses  in  order  u>  dwell 
in  tabernacles,  as  inhabitants  of  deserts  do  that  arc  in  want  of  comfort.  Wc 
shall  thereby  remember  that  this  has  once  been  our  condition  ;  [comp.]  "  I 
made  the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths  "  (Lev.  xxiii.  43)  ;  although 
we  dwell  now  in  elegant  houses,  in  the  best  and  most  fertile  land,  by  the 
kindness  of  God,  and  because  of  Mis  promises  to  our  forefathers,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  who  were  perfect  in  their  opinions  and  in  their  conduct. 
This  idea  is  likewise  an  important  clement  in  our  religion  ;  that  whatever 
good  we  have  received  and  ever  will  receive  of  God,  is  owing  to  the  merits 
of  the  Patriarchs,  who  "  kept  the  way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judg- 
ment "  (Gen,  xviii.  19).  We  join  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  the  Feast  of 
the  Eighth  Day,  in  order  to  complete  our  rcjoicini,*^,  which  cannot  be  perfect 
in  booths,  but  in  comfortable  and  well-built  houses.  \$  regards  the  four 
species  [the  branches  of  the  palm  tree,  the  citron,  the  mvrtle,  and  the  wriUowi 
of  the  brook]  our  Sages  gave  a  reason  fur  their  use  by  way  of   ^  •  r- 

pretation,  the  method  of  which  is  well  known  to  those  who  ..u  *,  j.i*...;cJ 
with  the  style  of  our  Sages.  They  use  the  text  of  the  Bible  only  as  a  kind  of 
poetical  language  [for  their  own  ideas],  and  do  not  intend  thereby  to  gitrc  an 
interpretation  of  the  text.     As  to  the  value  of  t'         * '   '      '  "a- 

tions,  we  meet  with  two  different  opinions.     For  s<  :  .  i«h 

contains  the  real  explanation  of  the  text,  whilst  othen,  finding  that  it  cinnot 
be  reconciled  with  the  words  quoted,  reject  and  ridicule  it.     The  former 


354  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

struggle  and  fight  to  prove  and  to  confirm  such  interpretations  according  to 
their  opinion,  and  to  keep  them  as  the  real  meaning  of  the  text ;  they  con- 
sider them  in  the  same  light  as  traditional  laws.  Neither  of  the  two  classes 
understood  it,  that  our  Sages  employ  biblical  texts  merely  as  poetical  ex- 
pressions, the  meaning  of  which  is  clear  to  every  reasonable  reader.  This 
style  was  general  in  ancient  days ;  all  adopted  it  in  the  same  way  as  poets 
[adopt  a  certain  style].  Our  Sages  say,  in  reference  to  the  words,  "  and  a 
paddle  (yaud)  thou  shalt  have  upon  thy  weapon  "  [azeneka,  Deut.  xxiii. 
14]  :  Do  not  read  azeneka,  "  thy  weapon,"  but  ozneka,^  "  thy  ear."  You 
are  thus  told,  that  if  you  hear  a  person  uttering  something  disgraceful,  put 
your  fingers  into  your  ears.  Now,  I  wonder  whether  those  ignorant  persons 
[who  take  the  Midrashic  interpretations  literally]  believe  that  the  author  of 
this  saying  gave  it  as  the  true  interpretation  of  the  text  quoted,  and  as  the 
meaning  of  this  precept ;  that  in  truth  yated,  "  the  paddle,"  is  used  for  "  the 
finger,"  and  azeneka  denotes  "  thy  ear."  I  cannot  think  that  any  person 
whose  intellect  is  sound  can  admit  this.  The  author  employed  the  text  as  a 
beautiful  poetical  phrase,  in  teaching  an  excellent  moral  lesson,  namely  this:  It 
is  as  bad  to  listen  to  bad  language  as  it  is  to  use  it.  This  lesson  is  poetically 
connected  with  the  above  text.  In  the  same  sense  you  must  understand  the 
phrase,  "  Do  not  read  so,  but  so,"  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  Midrash.  I 
have  departed  from  my  subject,  but  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  re- 
mark useful  to  every  intellectual  member  of  the  Rabbanites.  I  now  return 
to  our  theme.  I  believe  that  the  four  species  are  a  symbolical  expression  of 
our  rejoicing  that  the  Israelites  changed  the  wilderness,  "  no  place  of  seed, 
or  of  figs,  or  of  vines,  or  of  pomegranates,  or  of  water  to  drink  "  (Num.  xx.  5), 
with  a  country  full  of  fruit-trees  and  rivers.  In  order  to  remember  this  we 
take  the  fruit  which  is  the  most  pleasant  of  the  fruit  of  the  land,  branches 
which  smell  best,  most  beautiful  leaves,  and  also  the  best  of  herbs,  i.e.,  the 
willows  of  the  brook.  These  four  kinds  have  also  those  three  purposes : 
First,  they  were  plentiful  in  those  days  in  Palestine,  so  that  every  one  could 
easily  get  them.  Secondly,  they  have  a  good  appearance,  they  are  green  ; 
some  of  them,  viz.,  the  citron  and  the  myrtle,  are  also  excellent  as  regards 
their  smell,  the  branches  of  the  palm-tree  and  the  willow  having  neither 
good  nor  bad  smell.  Thirdly,  they  keep  fresh  and  green  for  seven  days, 
which  is  not  the  case  with  peaches,  pomegranates,  asparagus,  nuts,  and  the 
like. 

CHAPTER  XLIV 

The  precepts  of  the  ninth  class  are  those  enumerated  in  tlic  Section  on  Love. 
Their  reason  is  obvious.  The  actions  prescribed  by  them  serve  to  remind 
us  continually  of  God,  and  of  our  duty  to  fear  and  to  love  Him,  to  keep  all 
His  commandments,  and  to  believe  concerning  God  that  which  every  reh- 
gious  person  must  believe.  This  class  includes  the  laws  of  Prayer,  Reading  of 
Shema,  Grace,  and  duties  connected  with  these,  Blessing  of  the  priests,  Te- 
fiUin,  Mezuzah,  Zizit,  acquiring  a  scroll  of  the  Law,  and  reading  in  it  at 
certain  times.  The  performance  of  all  these  precepts  inculcates  into  our 
heart  useful  lessons.  All  this  is  clear,  and  a  further  explanation  is  super- 
fluous, as  being  a  mere  repetition  and  nothing  else. 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS 


CHAFri-R  XI A' 


355 


The  precepts  of  the  tenth  class  arc  those  enumerated  in  the  lam  on  ihc 
Temple  {Ililkot  bet  ha-behirah),  the  laws  on  the  vessels  of  the  temple  ind 
on  the  ministers  in  the  temple    [Ililkot  keif  ha-mikd,tih  veba'  y\ 

The  use  of  these  precepts  we  have  stateil  in  general  terms.  I:  .,  ...  .*n 
that  idolaters  selected  the  highest  possible  places  on  \\\^\\  mountain*  where 
to  build  their  temples  and  to  place  their  images.  Therefore  Abraham,  our 
father,  chose  Mount  Moriah,  being  the  highest  mount  in  that  c<.  ,nd 

proclaimed  there  the  Unity  of  God.     He  selected  the  west  of  th-  ■  ai 

the  place  toward  which  he  turned  during  his  prayers,  because  [he  thought 
that]  the  most  holy  place  was  in  the  West ;  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  laying 
of  our  Sages,  "  The  Shckinah  "  (the  Glory  of  God)  is  in  the  West  "  (B.  T. 
Baba  B  25^)  ;  and  it  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  Talmud  Yoraa  that  our 
father  Abraham  chose  the  west  side,  the  place  where  the  Most  Holy  wa*  buill. 
I  believe  that  he  did  so  because  it  was  then  a  general  rite  to  w<  •  '  '  •  lun  a» 
a  deity.  Undoubtedly  all  people  turned  then  to  the  Last  [w  ,  ,  .:ig  the 
Sun].  Abraham  turned  therefore  on  Mount  Moriah  to  the  West,  that  b, 
the  site  of  the  Sanctuary,  and  turned  his  back  toward  the  sun  ;  and  the 
Israelites,  when  they  abandoned  their  God  and  returned  to  the  early  bad 
principles,  stood  "  with  their  backs  toward  the  Temple  of  the  l>ord  and 
their  faces  toward  the  East,  and  they  worshipped  the  sun  toward  ihc 
East  "  (Ezek.  viii.  16).  Note  this  strange  fact.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the  ipoi 
which  Abraham  chose  in  his  prophetical  spirit,  was  known  to  Muici  our 
Teacher,  and  to  others  ;  for  Abraham  commanded  his  children  that  on  ihi* 
place  a  house  of  worship  should  be  built.    Thus  the  Targum  wy-  '.y, 

"And  Abraham  worshipped  and  prayed  there  in  that  place,  n  '  •  ■  !"rc 
God,  '  Here  shall  coming  generations  worship  the  Lord  '  "  (i  .  ^i.  14). 

For  three  practical  reasons  the  name  of  the  place  is  not  distinctly  stated  in 
the  Law,  but  indicated  in  the  phrase  "  To  the  place  which  the  Lord  will 
choose  "  (Deut.  xii.  11,  etc.).  First,  if  the  nations  had  learnt  that  this  pbcc 
was  to  be  the  centre  of  the  highest  religious  truths,  they  would  occupy  it,  or 
fight  about  it  most  perseveringly.  Secondly,  those  who  were  then  in  pouo- 
sion  of  it  might  destroy  and  ruin  the  place  with  all  their  might.  Thirdly, 
and  chiefly,  every  one  of  the  twelve  tribes  would  desire  to  have  this  place  in 
its  borders  and  under  its  control  ;  this  would  Ic^d  to  division*  and  ducord, 
such  as  were  caused  by  the  desire  for  the  priesthcKxI.     Therefore  it  vru 

commanded  that  the  Temple  should  not  be  built  before  the  clr  ^    -f  a 

king  who  would  order  its  erection,  and  thus  remove  the  cau»c  ■  :J. 

We  have  explained  this  in  the  Section  on  Judges  (ch.  xli.). 

It  is  known  that  the  heathen  in  those  days  built  tr  ^-t 

up  in  those  temples  the  image  which  they  agreed  up<>;.  ^ ,  .  '**^ 

it  was  in  some  relation  to  a  certain  star  or  to  a  portion  of  one  of  the  jphcttSj 
We  were,  therefore,  commanded  to  build  a  temple  to  the  name  of  God.  and 
to  place  therein  the  ark  with  two  tables  of  stone,  on  which  there  wr  'rn 
the  commandments  "  I  am  the  Lord,"  etc.,  and  "  Thou  shalt  ha-.  .cr 

God  before  me,"  etc.  Naturally  the  fundamental  belief  in  prophecy  pre- 
cedes the  belief  in  the  Law,  for  without  the  belief  in  pro;  be 
no  belief  in  the  Law.     But  a  prophet  only  receives  divine  1... ^                *f» 


356  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  agency  of  an  angel.  Comp.  "  Tlic  angel  of  the  Lord  called  "  (Gen. 
xxii.  15)  ;  "  The  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  her  "  {ibid.  xvi.  1 1)  ;  and  other 
innumerable  instances.  Even  Moses  our  Teacher  received  his  first  prophecy 
through  an  angel.  "  And  an  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  in  the  flame 
of  fire  "  (Exod.  iii.).  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the  belief  in  the  existence  of 
angels  precedes  the  belief  in  prophecy,  and  the  latter  precedes  the  belief  in 
the  Law.  The  Sabeans,  in  their  ignorance  of  the  existence  of  God,  believed 
that  the  spheres  with  their  stars  were  beings  without  beginning  and  without 
end,  that  the  images  and  certain  trees,  the  Asherot,  derived  certain  powers 
from  the  spheres,  that  they  inspired  the  prophets,  spoke  to  them  in  visions, 
and  told  them  what  was  good  and  what  bad.  I  have  explained  their  theory 
when  speaking  of  the  prophets  of  the  Ashera.  But  when  the  wise  men  dis- 
covered and  proved  that  there  was  a  Being,  neither  itself  corporeal  nor 
residing  as  a  force  in  a  corporeal  body,  viz.,  the  true,  one  God,  and  that  there 
existed  besides  other  purely  incorporeal  beings  which  God  endowed  with  His 
goodness  and  His  light,  namely,  the  angels,  and  that  these  beings  are  not 
included  in  the  sphere  and  its  stars,  it  became  evident  that  it  was  these  angels 
and  not  the  images  or  Asherot  that  charged  the  prophets.  From  the  preced- 
ing remarks  it  is  clear  that  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  angels  is  connected 
with  the  belief  in  the  Existence  of  God  ;  and  the  belief  in  God  and  angels 
leads  to  the  belief  in  Prophecy  and  in  the  truth  of  the  Law.  Int)rder  to  firmly 
establish  this  creed,  God  commanded  [the  Israelites]  to  make  over  the  ark 
the  form  of  two  angels.  The  belief  in  the  existence  of  angels  is  thus  inculcated 
into  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  this  belief  is  in  importance  next  to  the 
behef  in  God's  Existence  ;  it  leads  us  to  believe  in  Prophecy  and  in  the  Law, 
and  opposes  idolatry.  If  there  had  only  been  one  figure  of  a  cherub,  the 
people  would  have  been  misled  and  would  have  mistaken  it  for  God's  image 
which  was  to  be  worshipped,  in  the  fashion  of  the  heathen  ;  or  they  might 
have  assumed  that  the  angel  [represented  by  the  figure]  was  also  a  deity,  and 
would  thus  have  adopted  a  Dualism.  By  making  two  cherubim  and  dis- 
tinctly declaring  "  the  Lord  is  our  God,  the  Lord  is  One,"  Moses  clearly 
proclaimed  the  theory  of  the  existence  of  a  number  of  angels ;  he  left  no 
room  for  the  error  of  considering  those  figures  as  deities,  since  [he  declared 
that]  God  is  one,  and  that  He  is  the  Creator  of  the  angels,  who  are  more 
than  one. 

A  candlestick  was  then  put  in  front  of  the  curtain,  as  a  sign  of  honour  and 
distinction  for  the  Temple.  For  a  chamber  in  which  a  continual  light  burns, 
hidden  behind  a  curtain,  makes  a  great  impression  on  man,  and  the  Law  lays 
great  stress  on  our  holding  the  Sanctuary  in  great  estimation  and  regard, 
and  that  at  the  sight  of  it  we  should  be  filled  with  humihty,  mercy,  and  soft- 
heartedness.  This  is  expressed  in  the  words,  "  And  ye  shall  reverence  my 
sanctuary  "  (Lev.  xix.  30),  and  in  order  to  give  these  words  more  weight, 
they  are  closely  joined  to  the  command  to  keep  the  Sabbath. 

The  use  of  the  altar  for  incense  and  the  altar  for  burnt-offering  and  their 
vessels  is  obvious  ;  but  I  do  not  know  the  object  of  the  table  with  the  bread 
upon  it  continually,  and  up  to  this  day  I  have  not  been  able  to  assign  any 
reason  to  this  commandment. 

The  commandment  that  the  stones  of  the  altar  shall  not  be  hewn  and  that 
no  iron  tool  shall  be  lifted  up  upon  them  (Deut.  xxvii.  5),  has  been  explained 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS  357 

by  our  Sages  as  follows :   It  is  not  riRht  that  the  to«il  ihjt  .!,  •   " 

should  be  lifted  up  upon  that  which  gives  length  of  life.     A 
planation  this  is  good  ;  but  the  real  reason  is  this :  the  heathen  u»cd  to  b^,.:  1 
their  altars  with  hewn  stones;    we  ought  not   to  imitate  them      For  • 
reason  we  have  to  make  an  altar  of  earth  :    "Thou  shalt  make  unto  mc  . 
altar  of  earth  "  (Exod.  xx.  24)  ;  if  it  should  be  impossible  to  diipcnw:  a!;  . 
gether  with  stones,  they  must  not  be  hewn,  but  employed  in  their  natural 
state.     Thus  the  Law  also  prohibits  from  worshipping  over  p-     -    ' 
(Lev.  xxvi.  i),  or  from  planting  any  tree  near  the  altar  of  the  I 
XVI.  21).     The  object  of  all  these  commandments  is  the  same,  namely,  that  wc 
shall  not  employ  in  the  worship  of  God  anything  which  the  heathen  r:-  : 
in  the  worship  of  their  idols.     In  general  terms  this  is  repeated  in  the  :■,..   .. 
ing  passage  :    "  Take  heed,  that  thou  inquire  not  after  their  goils,  layiiii;. 
How  did  these  nations  serve  their  gods  ?  even  so  will  I  do  likewise  "  (Dcut. 
xii.  30)  ;  the  Israelites  shall  not  do  this,  because— as  is  expressly  adilcd— "  every 
abomination  unto  the  Lord,which  he  hateth,  have  they  done  unto  their  gods." 

The  mode  of  worshipping  Peor,  then  very  general  among  the  heathen, 
consisted  in  uncovering  the  nakedness.     The  priests  were  therefore  com- 
manded to  make  breeches  for  themselves  to  cover  their  nakedness  dii'-      -' 
service,  and,  besides,  no  steps  were  to  lead  up  to  the  altar,  *'  that  ih\ 
ness  be  not  discovered  thereon  "  (Exod.  xx.  23). 

The  Sanctuary  was  constantly  guarded  and  surrounded  [bv  Ixrvito]  ai  a 
mark  of  respect  and  honour  ;  and  at  the  same  time  the  layman,  the  unclean, 
and  mourners,  were  prevented  from  entering  the  Sanctuary,  at  will  be 
explained.  Among  other  things  that  tend  to  display  the  greatness  and  the 
glory  of  the  Temple  and  to  inspire  us  with  awe,  is  the  ruK-  •'    •  '    "' 

approach  it  in  a  state  of  drunkenness  or  undcanness,  or  in  a 
i.e.,  the  hair  undressed  and  the  garments  rent ;  and  that  every  one  who  offi- 
ciated as  priest  should  first  wash  his  hands  and  his  feet. 

In  order  to  raise  the  estimation  of  the  Temple,  those  who  mi'-'-'"'-' 
therein  received  great  honour;    and  the  priests  and  Ixrvitcs  were  i. 
distinguished  from  the  rest.     It  was  commanded  that  the  priests  should  be 
clothed  properly  with  beautiful  and  good  garments,  "holy  y  '  ■ 

glory  and  for  beauty"  (Exod.  xxviii.  2).     A  priest  that  had  a  i     .._. 

not  allowed  to  officiate  ;   and  not  only  those  that  had  a   blemish  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  service,  but  also — according  to  the  Talmudic  interpretation 

of  this  precept — those  that  had  an  abnormal  appearance  ;   for  th^ ' '- 

does  not  estimate  man  by  his  true  form  but  by  the  perfection  <  ; 

limbs  and  the  beauty  of  his  garments,  and  the  Temple  was  to  be  held  in  great 

reverence  by  all. 

The  Levites  did  not  sacrifice  ;  they  were  not  considered  as  b'-Ii'  i.'mft 
in  the  atonement  of  sins,  for  it  was  only  the  priest  who  was  • 
"  to  make  atonement  for  him  "  (Lev.  iv.  26)  and  "  to  make  atonement  <or 
her"  (Lev.  xii.  8).  The  duty  of  the  Levites  was  the  performance  of  vocal 
music  ;  and  a  Levite  became  therefore  disabled  for  service  when  he  lost 
his  voice.  The  object  of  the  singing  is  to  produce  certain  emotions ;  this 
object  can  only  be  attained  by  pleasing  sounds  and  melodies  accompanietl 
by  music,  as  was  always  the  case  in  the  Temple. 

Again,  the  priests,  even  when  fit  for  service,  and  actually  officiating  in  the 


358  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Temple,  were  not  allowed  to  sit  down,  or  enter  it  whenever  they  liked  ;  the 
Most  Holy  was  only  entered  by  the  high-priest  four  times  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  and  on  no  other  occasion.  The  object  of  all  these  rules  was  to 
raise  the  estimation  of  the  Sanctuary  in  the  eyes  of  the  people. 

Since  many  beasts  were  daily  slaughtered  in  the  holy  place,  the  flesh  cut 
in  pieces  and  the  entrails  and  the  legs  burnt  and  washed,  the  smell  of  the 
place  would  undoubtedly  have  been  like  the  smell  of  slaughter-houses,  if 
nothing  had  been  done  to  counteract  it.  They  were  therefore  commanded  to 
burn  incense  there  twice  every  day,  in  the  morning  and  in  the  evening  (Exod. 
XXX.  7,  8),  in  order  to  give  the  place  and  the  garments  of  those  who  officiated 
there  a  pleasant  odour.  There  is  a  well-known  saying  of  our  Sages,  "  In 
Jericho  they  could  smell  the  incense  "  [burnt  in  the  Temple].  This  pro- 
vision likewise  tended  to  support  the  dignity  of  the  Temple.  If  there  had 
not  been  a  good  smell,  let  alone  if  there  had  been  a  stench,  it  would  have 
produced  in  the  minds  of  the  people  the  reverse  of  respect ;  for  our  heart 
generally  feels  elevated  in  the  presence  of  good  odour,  and  is  attracted  by  it, 
but  it  abhors  and  avoids  bad  smell. 

The  anointing  oil  (Exod.  xxx.  22-33)  served  a  double  purpose  :  to  give  the 
anointed  object  a  good  odour,  and  to  produce  the  impression  that  it  was 
something  great,  holy,  and  distinguished,  and  better  than  other  objects  of 
the  same  species ;  it  made  no  difference  whether  that  object  was  a  human 
being,  a  garment,  or  a  vessel.  All  this  aimed  at  producing  due  respect  to- 
wards the  Sanctuary,  and  indirectly  fear  of  God.  When  a  person  enters  the 
Temple,  certain  emotions  are  produced  in  him  ;  and  obstinate  hearts  are 
softened  and  humbled.  These  plans  and  indirect  means  were  devised  by  the 
Law,  to  soften  and  humble  man's  heart  at  entering  the  holy  place,  in  order 
that  he  might  entrust  himself  to  the  sure  guidance  of  God's  commandments. 
This  is  distinctly  said  in  the  Law  :  "  And  thou  shalt  eat  before  the  Lord  thy 
God,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose  to  place  his  name  there,  the  tithe  of 
thy  corn,  of  thy  wine,  and  of  thine  oil,  and  the  firstlings  of  thy  herds  and  of 
thy  flocks ;  that  thou  mayest  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God  always  "  (Deut. 
xiv.  23).  The  object  of  all  these  ceremonies  is  now  clear.  The  reason  why 
we  are  not  allowed  to  prepare  [for  common  use]  the  anointing  oil  and  the 
incense  (ibid.  ver.  32,  38)  is  obvious ;  for  when  the  odour  [of  the  oil  and 
incense]  is  perceived  only  in  the  Sanctuary,  the  desired  effect  is  great ;  be- 
sides [if  it  were  allowed  for  every  one  to  prepare  the  anointing  oil],  people 
might  anoint  themselves  therewith  and  imagine  themselves  distinguished  ; 
much  disorder  and  dissension  would  then  follow. 

It  is  clear  that  when  the  ark  was  carried  on  the  shoulder,  and  was  not  put 
on  a  waggon,  it  was  done  out  of  respect  towards  it,  and  also  to  prevent  its 
being  damaged  in  its  form  and  shape  ;  even  the  staves  were  not  moved  out 
of  the  rings,  for  this  reason.  In  order  that  the  form  of  the  ephod  and  the 
breastplate  should  not  be  spoiled,  they  were  never  separated.  The  garments 
were  also  entirely  woven  and  not  cut,  in  order  not  to  spoU  the  work  of  the 
weaving. 

Those  that  ministered  in  the  Temple  were  strictly  prohibited  to  interfere 
with  each  other's  work ;  for  if  in  public  duties  and  offices,  each  one  would 
not  have  assigned  to  him  his  particular  task,  general  carelessness  and  neglect 
would  soon  be  noticed. 


THE    DIVINE    COM  MAN  DM  i:\TS  ^^n 

It  is  evident  that  the  object  of  givinR  ilifTcrcnt  a.•^'rc«  of  lanctity  |..  m. 
different  places,  to  the  Temple  mount,  the  place  between  tl.c  tw.  wall.,  (u 
the  Hall  of  women,  to  the  Hall,  and  so  on  up  to  the  Most  Holy,  wa»  to  raiie 
the  respect  and  reverence  of  the  Temple  in  the  heart  of  every  one  thai 

approached  it. 

We  have  thus  described  the  reason  of  all  precepts  of  this  class. 

CHAPTKR  XLVI 

The  precepts  of  the  eleventh  class  are  enumerated  in  the  Section  on  Divine 
Service  {Sefer  'abodah)  and  the  Section  on  Sacrifices  {Sejer  ha-korbanoi). 
We  have  described  their  use  in  general  terms  (chap,  xixii.).  I  will  now 
proceed  to  give  the  reason  of  each  precept  separately. 

Scripture  tells  us,  according  to  the  Version  of  Onkclos,  that  the  Ep>-ptians 
worshipped  Aries,  and  therefore  abstained  from  killing  sheep,  and  hclj  shep- 
herds in  contempt.     Comp.  "  Behold  we  shall  sacrifice  the  abomir- f 

the  Egyptians,"  etc.  (Exod.  viii.  26)  ;   "  For  every  shepherd  is  an  -. 

tion  to  the  Egyptians"  (Gen.  xlvi.  34).     Some  sects  among  the  Sabcans 

worshipped  demons,  and  imagined  that  these  assumed  the  form  ■  '  and 

called   them  therefore  "  goats  "  [i/zrirn].     This  worship  was    ^  :caJ. 

Comp.  "  And  they  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices  unto  demons,  after 
whom  they  have  gone  a  whoring  "  (Lev.  xvii.  7).  For  this  reason  those  sects 
abstained  from  eating  goats'  flesh.  Most  idolaters  objected  to  killing  cattlr. 
holding  this  species  of  animals  in  great  estimation.  Therefore  the  people  >>{ 
Hodu  [Indians]  up  to  this  day  do  not  slaughter  cattle  even  in  those  countries 
where  other  animals  are  slaughtered.  In  order  to  eradicate  these  false  prin- 
ciples, the  Law  commands  us  to  offer  sacrifices  only  of  these  three  kinds : 
"  Ye  shall  bring  your  offering  of  the  cattle  [viz.],  of  the  herd  and  of  the 
flock  "  (Lev.  i.  2).  Thus  the  very  act  which  is  considered  by  the  heathen  •» 
the  greatest  crime,  is  the  means  of  approaching  God,  and  ol  ■  ' ' 

pardon  for  our  sins.     In  this  manner,  evil  principles,  the  dis.^ 
human  soul,  are  cured  by  other  principles  which  are  diametrically  opposite. 

This  is  also  the  reason  why  we  were  commanded  to  kill  a  lamb  on 
Passover,  and  to  sprinkle  the  blood  thereof  outside  on  the  gates.  W'c  had 
to  free  ourselves  of  evil  doctrines  and  to  proclaim  the  opposite,  viz.,  that  the 
very  act  which  was  then  considered  as  being  the  cause  of  death  would  be  the 
cause  of  deliverance  from  death.  Comp.  '"  And  the  Lord  will  pass  over  the 
door,  and  will  not  suffer  the  destroyer  to  come  unto  your  houses  t.>  •  nitc 
you  "  (Exod.  xii.  23).  Thus  they  were  rewarded  for  performing  openly  a 
service  every  part  of  which  was  objected  to  by  the  idolatcn. 

To  the  above  reason  for  the  exclusive  selection  of  the  three  kinds  oi  animib 
for  sacrifices,  we  may  add  the  following,  namely,  that  thc5c  upct  ir^  arc  jr.imals 
which  can  be  got  very  easily,  contrary  to  the  practice  of  idolatcn  that  ucri- 
fice  lions,  bears,  and  wild  beasts,  as  is  stated  in  the  b<x)k  Tomtom.  As.  how- 
ever, many  could  not  afford  to  offer  a  beast,  the  Law  ct)mmandcd  that  birds 
also  should  be  sacrificed,  but  only  of  those  species  which  are  found  abun- 
dantly in  Palesrine,  are  suitable,  and  can  easily  be  obtained,  namely,  tunic- 
doves  and  pigeons.  Those  who  are  too  poor  to  offer  a  bird,  may  ^  ' 
of  any  of  the  kinds  then  in  use  :  b.iked  in  the  oven,  leaked  in  a  \  ,   , 


36o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

frying-pan.  If  the  baking  of  the  bread  is  too  much  trouble  for  a  person, 
he  may  bring  flour.  All  this  concerns  only  those  who  desire  to  sacrifice  ; 
for  we  are  distinctly  told  that  the  omission  of  the  sacrificial  service  on  our 
part  will  not  be  reckoned  to  us  a  sin  :  "  If  thou  shalt  forbear  to  vow,  it  shall 
be  no  sin  in  thee  "  (Deut.  xxiii.  22).  The  idolaters  did  not  offer  any  other 
bread  but  leavened,  and  chose  sweet  things  for  their  sacrifices,  which  they 
seasoned  with  honey,  as  is  fully  described  in  the  books  which  I  named  before  ; 
but  salt  is  not  mentioned  in  any  of  their  sacrifices.  Our  Law  therefore  for- 
bade us  to  offer  leaven  or  honey,  and  commanded  us  to  have  salt  in  every 
sacrifice  :  "  With  all  thine  offerings  thou  shalt  offer  salt  "  (Lev.  ii.  13).  It 
is  further  ordained  that  the  offerings  must  all  be  perfect  and  in  the  best  con- 
dition, in  order  that  no  one  should  slight  the  offering  or  treat  with  contempt 
that  which  is  offered  to  God's  name  :  "  Offer  it  now  unto  thy  governor  ; 
will  he  be  pleased  with  thee  ?  "  (Mai.  i.  8).  This  is  the  reason  why  no 
animal  could  be  brought  that  was  not  yet  seven  days  old  (Lev.  xxii.  26)  ;  it 
is  imperfect  and  contemptible,  like  an  untimely  birth.  Because  of  their 
degraded  character  it  was  prohibited  to  bring  "  the  hire  of  a  harlot  and  the 
price  of  a  dog  "  (Deut.  xxiii.  18)  into  the  Sanctuary.  In  order  to  bring  the 
offering  in  the  best  condition,  we  choose  the  old  of  the  turtle-doves  and  the 
young  of  the  pigeons,  the  old  pigeons  being  less  agreeable.  The  oblation 
must  likewise  be  mingled  with  oil,  and  must  be  of  fine  flour  (Lev.  ii.  l),  for 
in  this  condition  it  is  good  and  pleasant.  Frankincense  is  prescribed  (ibid.) 
because  its  fumes  are  good  in  places  filled  with  the  odour  of  burnt  flesh.  The 
burnt-offering  was  flayed  (Lev.  i.  16),  and  its  inwards  and  legs,  although  they 
were  entirely  burnt,  had  to  be  previously  washed  (ibid.  ver.  9),  in  order  that 
due  respect  should  be  shown  to  the  sacrifice,  and  it  should  not  appear  despic- 
able and  contemptible.  This  object  is  constantly  kept  in  view,  and  is  often 
taught,  "  Ye  say.  The  table  of  the  Lord  is  polluted  ;  and  the  fruit  thereof, 
even  his  meat,  is  contemptible  "  (Mai.  i.  12).  For  the  same  reason  no  body 
uncircumcised,  or  unclean  (Lev.  xxii.  4),  was  allowed  to  partake  of  any  offer- 
ing ;  nor  could  any  offering  be  eaten  that  had  become  unclean  (Lev.  vii.  19), 
or  was  left  till  after  a  certain  time  (ibid.  vii.  15-17),  or  concerning  which  an 
illegal  intention  had  been  conceived  ;  and  it  had  also  to  be  consumed  in  a 
particular  place.  Of  the  burnt-offering,  which  is  entirely  devoted  to  God, 
nothing  at  all  was  eaten.  Those  sacrifices  which  are  brought  for  a  sin,  viz., 
sin-offering  and  guilt-offering,  must  be  eaten  within  the  court  of  the  Sanc- 
tuary ('azarah),  and  only  on  the  day  of  their  slaughtering  and  the  night 
following,  whilst  peace-offerings,  which  are  next  in  sanctity,  being  sacrifices 
of  the  second  degree,  may  be  eaten  in  the  whole  of  Jerusalem,  on  the  day  they 
have  been  offered  and  on  the  following  day,  but  not  later.  After  that  time 
the  sacrifices  would  become  spoiled,  and  be  unfit  for  food. 

In  order  that  we  may  respect  the  sacrifices  and  all  that  is  devoted  to  the 
name  of  God,  we  are  told  that  whosoever  takes  part  of  a  holy  thing  for 
common  use  has  committed  a  trespass,  must  bring  a  sin-offering,  and  restore 
what  he  has  taken  with  an  addition  of  the  fifth  part  of  its  value,  although  he 
may  have  committed  the  trespass  in  ignorance.  For  the  same  reason  animals 
reserved  for  holy  purposes  must  not  be  employed  in  work  ;  nor  is  the  shearing 
of  such  animals  permitted  (Deut.  xv.  19).  The  law  concerning  the  change 
of  a  sacrifice  must  be  considered  as  a  preventive  ;  for  if  it  were  permitted  to 


THE    DIVINE    COMM.WDMENTS  -.m 

substitute  a  good  animal  for  a  bad  one,  people  would  substitute  a  1  .1 

for  a  good  one,  and  say  that  it  was  better  than  the  orij^inal  ;  it  w^^ 
the  rule  that,  if  any  such  change  had  taken  place,  both  the  **  oriRinal  U' 
and  the  exchange  thereof  should  be  holy  "  (Lev.  xivii.  9).     W'  , 

redeems  a  thing  devoted  by  him  to  the  Sanctuary,  he  must  like.-..,, 
fifth  (Lev.  xxvii.  13,  15)  ;  the  reason  for  this  is  plain.     Man  is  uiuu! 
and  is  naturally  inclined  to  keep  and  save  his  property.     He  would  the- 
not  take  the  necessary  trouble  in  the  interest  of  the  Sanctuary  ;   hew     '         i 
expose  his  property  sufficiently  to  the  sight  of  the  valuer,  and  its  tr  .r 

would  not  be  fixed.     Therefore  the  owner  had  to  add  one-fifth,  whiUt  4 
stranger  paid  only  the  exact  value.     These  rules  were  laid  down  in  order 
that  people  should  not  despise  that  with  which  the  name  of  (}od  is  connected, 
and  which  serves  as  a  means  of  approaching  God.     The  oblation  of  the  priest 
was  entirely  burnt  (Lev.  vi.  16),  because  the  priest  offered  up  hi§  oblation 
by  himself,  and  if  he  were  to  offer  it,  and  at  the  same  time  to  eat  it,  it  would 
appear  as  if  he  had  not  performed  any  service.      For  nothing  was  oflcrcd 
upon  the  altar  of  the  ordinary  oblations  of  any  person  except  the  frankin- 
cense and  a  handful  of  the  flour  or  cake  ;  and  if,  in  addition  to  the  fact  that 
the  offering  was  small,  he  who  offered  it  were  himself  to  cat  it,  nothing  of  a 
sacrificial  service  would  be  noticed.      It  is  therefore  entirely  burnt  (Lev. 
vi.  16). 

The  reason  of  the  particular  laws  concerning  the  Passfiver  lamb  is    " 
It  was  eaten  roasted  by  fire  (Exod.  xii.  8-9)  in  one  house,  and  without  brc...... 

the  bones  thereof  (ibid.  ver.  46).     In  the  same  way  as  the  Israelites  were 
commanded  to  eat  unleavened  bread,  because  they  could  prepare  it  ha 
so  they  were  commanded,  for  the  sake  of  haste,  to  roast  the  lamh.  ' 
there  was  not  sufficient  time  to  boil  it,  or  to  prepare  other  food  ;   ■ 
delay  caused  by  breaking  the  bones  and  to  extract  their  marrow  was  pro- 
hibited ;    the  one  principle  is  laid  down  for  all  these  rules,  "  Yc  shall  eat  it 
in  haste  "  (Exod.  xii.  li).     But  when  haste  is  necessary  the  bones  cannot  be 
broken,  nor  parts  of  it  sent  from  house  to  house  ;  for  the  company  could 
not  wait  with  their  meal  till  he  returned.     Such  things  would  lead  to  laxity 
and  delay,  whilst  the  object  of  these  rules  was  to  make  a  show  of  t' 
and  haste,  in  order  that  none  should  be  too  late  to  leave  Egypt  with  t 
body  of  the  people,  and  be  thus  exposed  to  the  attacks  and  the  evil  [dcsif^ns 
of  the  enemy].     These  temporary  commandments  were  then  made  perma- 
nent, in  order  that  we  may  remember  what  was  done  in  those  days.     "  A-  ' 
thou  shalt  keep  this  ordinance  in  his  season  from  year  to  year  "  (KxfxI.   > 
10).      Each  Passover  lamb  was  only  eaten  by  those  who  had  previously  agreed 
to  consume  it  together,  in  order  that  people  should  be  anxious  m  pr 
and  should  not  rely  on  friends,  relations,  or  on  chance,  without  ll 
taking  any  trouble  about  it  before  Passover.     The  reason  of  the  pr. 
that  the  uncircumcised  should  not  eat  of  it  (Exod.  xii.  48)  is  cxplamcd  by 
our  Sages  as  follows: — The  Israelites  neglected  ci-^ 
long  stay  in  Egypt,  in  order  to  make  themselves  ap; 

When  God  gave  them  the  commandment  of  the  Passover,  and  ordered  that 
no  one  should  kill  the  Passover  lamb  unless  he,  his  sons,  and  all  the  male  per- 
sons in  his  household  were  circumcised,  that  only  "then  he  could  come  --«- 
and  keep  it "  {ibid.  xii.  48),  all  performed  this  commandment,  and  the  nu:; 


362  GVIDE    for    the    PERPLEXED 

of  the  circumcised  being  large  the  blood  of  the  Passover  and  that  of  the 
circumcision  flowed  together.  The  Prophet  Ezekiel  (xvi.  6),  referring  to 
this  event,  says,  "  When  I  saw  thee  sprinkled  with  thine  own  blood  I  said 
unto  thee,  Live  because  of  thy  [two  kinds  of]  blood,"  i.e.,  because  of  the 
blood  of  the  Passover  and  that  of  the  circumcision. 

Although  blood  was  very  unclean  in  the  eyes  of  the  Sabeans,  they  never- 
theless partook  of  it,  because  they  thought  it  was  the  food  of  the  spirits ;  by 
eating  it  man  has  something  in  common  with  the  spirits,  which  join  him  and 
tell  him  future  events,  according  to  the  notion  which  people  generally  have 
of  spirits.  There  were,  however,  people  who  objected  to  eating  blood,  as 
a  thing  naturally  disliked  by  man  ;  they  killed  a  beast,  received  the  blood  in 
a  vessel  or  in  a  pot,  and  ate  of  the  flesh  of  that  beast,  whilst  sitting  round  the 
blood.  They  imagined  that  in  this  manner  the  spirits  would  come  to  par- 
take of  the  blood  which  was  their  food,  whilst  the  idolaters  were  eating  the 
flesh  ;  that  love,  brotherhood,  and  friendship  vsath  the  spirits  were  estab- 
lished, because  they  dined  with  the  latter  at  one  place  and  at  the  same  time  ; 
that  the  spirits  would  appear  to  them  in  dreams,  inform  them  of  coming 
events,  and  be  favourable  to  them.  Such  ideas  people  liked  and  accepted 
in  those  days  ;  they  were  general,  and  their  correctness  was  not  doubted  by 
any  one  of  the  common  people.  The  Law,  which  is  perfect  in  the  eyes  of 
those  who  know  it,  and  seeks  to  cure  mankind  of  these  lasting  diseases,  forbade 
the  eating  of  blood,  and  emphasized  the  prohibition  exactly  in  the  same  terms 
as  it  emphasizes  idolatry  :  "  I  will  set  my  face  against  that  soul  that  eateth 
blood  "  (Lev.  xvii.  lo).  The  same  language  is  employed  in  reference  to  him 
"  who  giveth  of  his  seed  unto  Molech  "  ;  "  then  I  will  set  my  face  against 
that  man  "  (ibid.  xx.  5).  There  is,  besides  idolatry  and  eating  blood,  no 
other  sin  in  reference  to  which  these  words  are  used.  For  the  eating  of  blood 
leads  to  a  kind  of  idolatry,  to  the  worship  of  spirits.  Our  Law  declared  the 
blood  as  pure,  and  made  it  the  means  of  purifying  other  objects  by  its  touch. 
"  And  thou  shalt  take  of  the  blood  .  .  .  and  sprinkle  it  upon  Aaron,  and 
upon  his  garments,  and  upon  his  sons,  and  upon  the  garments  of  his  sons 
vwth  him.  And  he  shall  be  hallowed,  and  his  garments,  and  his  sons,"  etc. 
(Exod.  xxix.  21).  Furthermore,  the  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  altar, 
and  in  the  whole  service  it  was  insisted  upon  pouring  it  out,  and  not  upon 
collecting  it.  Comp.  "  And  he  shall  pour  out  all  the  blood  at  the  bottom 
of  the  altar  "  (Lev.  iv.  18) ;  "  And  the  blood  of  thy  sacrifices  shall  be  poured 
out  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord  thy  God  "  (Deut.  xii.  27).  Also  the  blood 
of  those  beasts  that  were  kiUed  for  common  use,  and  not  for  sacrifices,  must 
be  poured  out,  "  Thou  shalt  pour  it  upon  the  earth  as  water  "  (ibid.  ver.  24). 
We  are  not  allowed  to  gather  and  have  a  meal  round  the  blood,  "  You  shall 
not  eat  round  the  blood  "  (Lev.  xix.  26).  As  the  Israelites  were  inclined  to 
continue  their  rebellious  conduct,  to  follow  the  doctrines  in  which  they  had 
been  brought  up,  and  which  were  then  general,  and  to  assemble  round  the 
blood  in  order  to  eat  there  and  to  meet  the  spirits,  God  forbade  the  Israelites 
to  eat  ordinary  meat  during  their  stay  in  the  wilderness ;  they  could  only 
partake  of  the  meat  of  peace-offerings.  The  reason  of  this  precept  is  dis- 
tinctly stated,  viz.,  that  the  blood  shall  be  poured  out  upon  the  altar,  and 
the  people  do  not  assemble  round  about.  Comp.  "  To  the  end  that  the 
children  of  Israel  may  bring  their  sacrifices,  which  they  offer  in  the  open 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS  363 

field,  even  that  they  may  bring  them  unto  the  \^yi,\.  .  .  .  And  the 
priest  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  altar,  ...  and  they  shall  no  more  offer 
their  sacrifices  unto  the  spirits  "  (Lev.  xvii.  5-7).     Now  tlierc  r  'to 

provide  for  the  slaughtering  of  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  birds,  be  ...  r-r 

beasts  were  never  sacrificed,  and  birds  did  never  serve  as  pcacc-olic.:.,  , 
(Lev.  iii.).  The  commandment  was  therefore  given  that  whenever  a  beast 
or  a  bird  that  maybe  eaten  is  killed,  the  blood  thereof  must  be  covered  with 
earth  (Lev.  xvii.  13),  in  order  that  the  people  should  not  assemble  round  the 
blood  for  the  purpose  of  eating  there.  The  object  was  thus  fully  gained  to 
break  the  connexion  between  these  fools  and  their  spirits.  This  belief 
flourished  about  the  time  of  our  Teacher  Moses.  People  were  attracted  and 
misled  by  it.  We  find  it  in  the  Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxii.)  :  "  They  sacri- 
ficed unto  spirits,  not  to  God"  (ibid.  17).  According  to  the  explanation 
of  our  Sages,  the  words  lo  cloha  imply  the  following  idea  :  They  have  not  only 
not  left  off  worshipping  things  in  existence  ;  they  even  worship  imaginary 
things.  This  is  expressed  in  Sifri  as  follows  :  "  It  is  not  enough  for  them 
to  worship  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars ;  they  even  worship  their  bahuah. 
The  word  babuah  signifies  "  shadow."  Let  us  now  return  to  our 
subject.  The  prohibition  of  slaughtering  cattle  for  common  use  applied 
oiJy  to  the  wilderness,  because  as  regards  the  "  spirits  "  it  was  then  the 
general  belief  that  they  dwelt  in  deserts,  that  there  they  spoke  and  were 
visible,  whilst  in  towns  and  in  cultivated  land  they  did  not  appear.  In 
accordance  with  this  belief  those  inhabitants  of  a  town  who  wanted  to  per- 
form any  of  those  stupid  practices,  left  the  town  and  went  to  woods  and 
waste  places.  The  use  of  cattle  for  common  food  was  therefore  allowed 
when  the  Israelites  entered  Palestine.  Besides,  there  were  great  hopes  that 
the  disease  would  become  weakened,  and  the  followers  of  the  doctrines  would 
decrease.  Furthermore,  it  was  almost  impossible  that  every  one  who  wanted 
to  eat  meat  should  come  to  Jerusalem.  For  these  reasons  the  above  restric- 
tion was  limited  to  the  stay  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness. 

The  greater  the  sin  which  a  person  had  committed,  the  lower  was  the 
species  from  which  the  sin-offering  was  brought.  The  offering  for  wor- 
shipping idols  in  ignorance  was  only  a  she-goat,  whilst  for  other  sins  an  or- 
dinary person  brought  cither  a  ewe-lamb  or  a  she-goat  (Lev.  iv.  27-35),  ^^^ 
females  bring,  as  a  rule,  in  every  species,  inferior  to  the  males.  There  i»  no 
greater  sin  than  idolatry,  and  also  no  inferior  species  than  a  -'  '.     The 

offering  of  a  king  for  sins  committed  ignorantly  was  a  he->;  ^  l.  vers. 
22-26),  as  a  mark  of  distinction.  The  high  priest  and  the  Synhedrion,  who 
only  gave  a  wrong  decision  in  ignorance,  but  have  not  actually^ommittcd 
a  sin,  brought  a  bull  for  their  sin-offering  {ibid.  vcr.  3-21),  or  a  hc-goat,  when 
the  decision  referred  to  idolatry  (Num.  iv.  22-26).  The  sins  for  which 
guilt-offerings  were  brought  were  not  as  bad  as  transgressions  that  required 
a  sin-offering.  The  guilt-offering  was  therefore  a  ram,  or  a  lamb,  so  that 
the  species  as  well  as  the  sex  were  superior  in  this  latter  case,  for  the  guilt- 
offering  was  a  male  sheep.  For  the  same  reason  wc  sec  the  burnt-offering, 
which  was  entirely  burnt  upon  the  altar,  was  selected  from  the  superior  »cx  ; 
for  only  male  animals  were  admitted  as  burnt-offerings.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  the  same  principle  that  luxury  and  incense  were  absent  from  the 
oblations  of  a  sinner  (Lev.  v.  11),  and  of  a  souh,  i.e.,  a  woman  suspected  oi 


364  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

adultery  (Num.  v.  15).  In  these  cases  the  oil  and  the  frankincense  were 
not  added  ;  this  luxury  was  absent,  because  the  persons  that  brought  the 
oblation  were  not  good  ani.!  proper  in  their  deeds,  and  they  are,  as  it  were, 
to  be  reminded  by  their  offerings  that  they  ought  to  repent ;  as  if  they  were 
told,  "  Your  offering  is  without  any  ornamental  addition  on  account  of  the 
wickedness  of  your  deeds."  As  the  sotah  acted  more  disgracefully  than  any 
person  who  sins  in  ignorance,  her  offering  consisted  of  the  lowest  kind,  viz.,  of 
barley  flour  (ibid.).  Thus  the  reasons  of  all  these  particular  laws  are  well 
connected,  and  show  that  the  precepts  are  wonderful  in  their  significance. 

Our  Sages  say  that  the  offering  for  the  eighth  day  of  dedication  was   "  a 
calf,  a  young  bullock,  for  a  sin-offering  "  (Lev.  xi.  2),  in  order  to  atone  for 
the  sin  of  the  Israelites  in  making  a  golden  calf.     The  sin-offering,  which 
was  brought  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  (ibid.  xvi.  3),  was  likewise  explained 
as  being  an  atonement  for  that  sin.     From  this  argument  of  our  Sages  I 
deduce  that  he-goats  were  always  brought  as  sin-offerings,  by  individual 
persons  and  also  by  the  whole  congregation,  viz.,  on  the  Festivals,  New-moon, 
Day  of  Atonement,  and  for  idolatry,  because  most  of  the  transgressions  and 
sins  of  the  Israelites  were  sacrifices  to  spirits  (se'irim,  lit.,  goats),  as  is  clearly 
stated,  "  They  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices  unto  spirits  "  (Lev.  xvii.  7). 
Our  Sages,  however,  explained  the  fact  that  goats  were  always  the  sin-oifer- 
ings  of  the  congregation,  as  an  allusion  to  the  sin  of  the  whole  congregation 
of  Israel ;  for  in  the  account  of  the  selling  of  the  pious  Joseph  we  read,  "  And 
they  killed  a  kid  of  the  goats  "  (Gen.  xxxvii.  31).     Do  not  consider  this  as  a 
weak  argument ;  for  it  is  the  object  of  all  these  ceremonies  to  impress  on  the 
mind  of  every  sinner  and  transgressor  the  necessity  of  continually  remem- 
bering and  mentioning  his  sins.     Thus  the  Psalmist  says,   "  And   my  sin  is 
ever  before  me  "  (Ps.  li.   3).     The  above-mentioned  sin-offerings  further 
show  us  that  when  we  commit  a  sin,  we,  our  children,  and  the  children  of 
our  children,  require  atonement  for  that  sin  by  some  kind  of  service  analogous 
to  the  sin  committed.     If  a  person  has  sinned  in  respect  to  property  he  must 
liberally  spend  his  property  in  the  service  of  God  ;   if  he  indulged  in  sinful 
bodily  enjoyments  he  must  weary  his  body  and  trouble  it  by  a  service  of 
privation  and  fasting,  and  rising  early  before  daybreak.     If  he  went  astray 
in  respect  to  his  moral  conduct  he  must  oppose  his  failings  by  keeping  to  the 
opposite  extreme,   as  we  have  pointed   out   in  Mishneh-torah  Hilkot  De'ot 
(chap,  ii.)  et  -passim.     If  his  intellectual  faculties  have  been  concerned  in  the 
sin,  if  he  has  believed  something  false  on  account  of  the  insufficiency  of  his 
intellect,  and  his  neglect  of  research  and  proper  study,  he  must  remedy  his 
fault  by  turning  his  thoughts  entirely  away  from  worldly  afltairs,  and  directing 
them  exclusively  to  intellectual  exercise,  and  by  carefully  reflecting  on  that 
which  ought  to  form  the  subject  of  his  belief.     Comp.  "  And  my  heart  hath 
been  secretly  enticed,  but  my  hand  touched  my  mouth  "  (Job  xxxi.  27). 
These  words  express  figuratively  the  lesson  that  we  should  pause  and  stop 
at  that  which  appears  doubtful,  as  has  been  pointed  out  by  us  in  the  begin- 
ning of  this  treatise.     The  same  we  notice  in  the  case  of  Aaron.     He  had  his 
share  in  the  sin  of  the  golden  calf,  and  therefore  a  bullock  and  a  calf  were 
brought  by  him  and  his  successors  as  an  offering.     Similarly,  the  sin  connected 
with  a  kid  of  goats  was  atoned  for  bv  a  kid  of  goats.     When  this  theory  has 
been  well  established  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  they  must  certainly  be  led 


THE    DIVINE    COMMAXDMENTS  ^y^ 

by  it  to  consider  disobedience  to  God  as  a  disgraceful  thinR.     Kvcry  one  will 
then  be  careful  that  he  should  not  sin,  ami  require  a  protracted  and  burden- 
some atonement ;   he  will  be  afraid  he  mij,'lit  not  be  able  to  comj ' 
will  therefore  altogether  abstain  from  sinning,',  and  avi.id  it.      1 
[of  the  laws  under  discussion]  is  very  clear,  and  note  it  likcwite. 

I  will  here  call  your  attention  to  a  very  remarkable  thinj,',  .i'  it  doc» 

not  seem  at  first  thought  to  belong  to  our  subject.  It  is  ....,,  i':.-  -  • 
brought  on  New-moon  as  a  sin-ofTering  that  the  law  calls  "a  lin- 
unto  the  Lord  "  (Num.  xxviii.  15).  The  sin-ofFcrings  brought  on  the  ihre« 
festivals  (ibid.  wers.  22,  30;  xxix.  5,  11,  etc.)  are  not  called  so,  n<.r  are  any 
other  sin-ofierings.  The  reason  tliereof  is,  according  to  mv  ..r  ;•  ;,.n,  un- 
doubtedly this:  The  additional  offerings  brought  by  the  »  ion  at 
certain  periods  were  all  burnt-ofTerings  ;  only  "  one  kid  of  goats  to  make  an 
atonement  "  was  oflFered  on  every  one  of  these  exceptional  days.  The  latter 
was  eaten  [by  the  priests],  whilst  the  burnt-oflerings  were  entirely  coniumcJ 
by  fire,  and  are  called  "  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Ixird."  'ITie 
phrases  "  a  sin-offering  unto  the  Lord  "  and  "  a  pcacc-offcring  unto  the 
Lord  "  do  not  occur  in  the  law,  because  these  were  eaten  by  man  ;  but  even 
those  sin-offerings  that  were  entirely  burnt  (Lev.  iv.  12,  21)  cannot  be  called 
"  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord,"  as  will  be  explained  in  the  counc 
of  this  chapter.  It  is  therefore  impossible  that  the  goats  whir!: 
[by  the  priests],  and  are  not  entirely  burnt,  should  be  called  "  s;  ^ 
unto  the  Lord."  But  as  it  was  found  that  the  kid  offered  on  New-moon 
might  be  mistaken  as  an  offering  brought  to  the  moon,  in  the  manner  of  the 

Egyptians,  who  sacrificed  to  the  moon  on  the  days  of  Nov.  ••.  it  was 

distinctly  stated  that  this  goat  is  offered  in  obedience  to  Cj  .mand, 

and  not  in  honour  of  the  moon.  This  fear  did  not  apply  to  the  sin-offeringt 
on  the  Festivals,  nor  to  any  other  sin-offering,  because  they  were  not  ofTrrcU 
on  the  days  of  New-moon,  or  on  any  other  day  marked  out  by  Nature,  but  on 
such  days  as  were  selected  by  the  Divine  Will.  Not  so  the  da)^  of  New-moon  ; 
they  are  not  fixed  by  the  Law  [but  by  Nature].  On  the  Ncw-mot>n  the 
idolaters  sacrificed  to  the  moon,  in  the  same  manner  as  tin  v    -  '  •    the 

sun  when  it  rose  and  set  in  certain  particular  degrees.     '1  '.in 

the  works  [mentioned  above].  On  this  account  the  extraordinary  phrase 
"  A  sin-offering  unto  the  Lord  "  is  exceptionally  introduced  in  r-  •  to 

the  goat  brought  on  New-moon,  in  order  to  remove  the  idoL;. .cu 

that  were  still  lingering  in  the  sorely  diseased  hearts.  Note  this  exception 
likewise.  A  sin-offering  which  is  brought  in  the  hope  to  atone  for  one  or 
more  great  sins,  as,  e.g.,  the  sin-offering  [of  the  Synhcdrion  or  t '     '     '  «tl 

for  a  sin  committed  in  ignorance,  and  the  like,  arc  not  burnt     ,  iT, 

but  without  the  camp  ;  upon  the  altar  only  the  burnt-offcrinjf.  and  the  like, 
are  burnt,  wherefore  it  was  called  the  altar  of  the  burnt  'Vhe 

burning  of  the  holocaust,  and  of  every  "  memorial,"  is  called  "  -  ■  •  •  vour 

unto  the  Lord  "  ;   and  so  it  undoubtedly  is,  since  it  serves  to  re:  la- 

trous  doctrines  from  our  hearts,  as  we  have  shown.     But  the  burnmg  of 
these  sin-offerings  is  a  symbol  that  the  sin  [for  which  the  ■ 
is  utterly  removed  and  destroyed,  like  the  Ixnly  that  is  b 
sinful  seed  no  trace  shall  remain,  as  no  trace  is  left  of  the  Ji  ^       U  t$ 

entirely  destroyed  by  fire ;    the  smoke  thereof  is  not  "  a  sweet  savour  unto 


366  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

the  Lord,"  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  smoke  despised  and  abhorred.  For  this 
reason  the  burning  took  place  without  the  camp.  Similarly  we  notice  that 
the  oblations  of  a  sotah  is  called  "  an  offering  of  memorial,  bringing  iniquity 
to  remembrance  "  (Num.  v.  15) ;  it  is  not  a  pleasing  thing  [to  the  Lord]. 
The  goat  [of  the  Day  of  Atonement]  that  was  sent  [into  the  wilderness]  (Lev. 
xvi.  20,  seq.)  served  as  an  atonement  for  all  serious  transgressions  more  than 
any  other  sin-offering  of  the  congregation.  As  it  thus  seemed  to  carry  oflE 
all  sins,  it  was  not  accepted  as  an  ordinary  sacrifice  to  be  slaughtered,  burnt, 
or  even  brought  near  the  Sanctuary ;  it  was  removed  as  far  as  possible,  and 
sent  forth  into  a  waste,  uncultivated,  uninhabited  land.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  sins  cannot  be  carried  like  a  burden,  and  taken  off  the  shoulder  of  one 
being  to  be  laid  on  that  of  another  being.  But  these  ceremonies  are  of  a 
symbolic  character,  and  serve  to  impress  men  with  a  certain  idea,  and  to  in- 
duce them  to  repent ;  as  if  to  say,  we  have  freed  ourselves  of  our  previous  deeds, 
have  cast  them  behind  our  backs,  and  removed  them  from  us  as  far  as  possible. 

As  regards  the  offering  of  wine  (Num.  xv.  5,  seq.),  I  am  at  a  loss  to  find  a 
reason  why  God  commanded  it,  since  idolaters  brought  wine  as  an  offering. 
But  though  I  am  unable  to  give  a  reason,  another  person  suggested  the 
following  one  :  Meat  is  the  best  nourishment  for  the  appetitive  faculty,  the 
source  of  which  is  the  liver ;  wine  supports  best  the  vital  faculty,  whose 
centre  is  the  heart ;  music  is  most  agreeable  to  the  psychic  faculty,  the  source 
of  which  is  in  the  brain.  Each  one  of  our  faculties  approaches  God  with  that 
which  it  likes  best.     Thus  the  sacrifice  consists  of  meat,  wine,  and  music. 

The  use  of  keeping  festivals  is  plain.  Man  derives  benefit  from  such 
assemblies :  the  emotions  produced  renew  the  attachment  to  religion ; 
they  lead  to  friendly  and  social  intercourse  among  the  people.  This  is  espe- 
cially the  object  of  the  commandment  to  gather  the  people  together  on  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  as  is  plainly  stated  :  "  that  they  may  hear,  and  that 
they  may  learn  and  fear  the  Lord  "  (Deut.  xxxi.  12).  The  same  is  the  object 
of  the  rule  that  the  money  for  the  second  tithe  must  be  spent  by  all  in  one 
place  (ibid.  xiv.  22-26),  as  we  have  explained  (chap,  xxxix.  p.  184).  The 
fruit  of  trees  in  their  fourth  year,  and  the  tithe  of  the  cattle,  had  to  be  brought 
to  Jerusalem.  There  would  therefore  be  in  Jerusalem  the  meat  of  the 
tithes,  the  wdne  of  the  fruit  of  the  fourth  year,  and  the  money  of  the  second 
tithe.  Plenty  of  food  would  always  be  found  there.  Nothing  of  the  above 
things  could  be  sold  ;  nothing  could  be  set  aside  for  another  year  ;  the  Law 
orders  that  they  should  be  brought  "  year  by  year  "  (Deut.  xiv.  22)  ;  the 
owner  was  thus  compelled  to  spend  part  of  them  in  charity.  As  regards  the 
Festivals  it  is  especially  enjoined  :  "  And  thou  shalt  rejoice  in  thy  feast,  thou, 
and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  man-servant,  and  thy  maid-servant, 
and  the  Levite,  the  stranger,  and  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow  "  (ibid.  xvi.  14). 
We  have  thus  explained  the  reason  of  every  law  belonging  to  this  class,  and 
even  many  details  of  the  laws. 

CHAPTER  XLVII 

The  precepts  of  the  twelfth  class  are  those  which  we  have  enumerated  in  the 
section  on  "  Purity  "  (Sefer  tohorah).  Although  we  have  mentioned  their 
use  in  general,  we  will  here  offer  an   additional  explanation,  and  [first]  fully 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS  367 

discuss  the  object  of  the  whole  class,  and  then  show  the  rcjjon  of  each  iinfcic 
commandment,  as  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover  it.  I  mainuin  that 
the  Law  which  was  revealed  to  Moses,  our  Teacher,  and  which  ii  callcJ  by 
his  name,  aims  at  facilitating  the  service  and  lessening  the  burden,  and  if  a 
person  complains  that  certain  precepts  cause  him  pain  and  great  trouble,  he 
cannot  have  thought  of  the  habits  and  doctrines  that  were  general  in  thote 
days.  Let  him  consider  the  difference  between  a  man  burning  7u$  own  win 
in  serving  his  god,  and  our  burning  a  pigeon  to  the  service  of  our  (]<xl. 
Scripture  relates,  "  for  even  their  sons  and  their  daughtcn  they  burn  in  the 
fire  to  their  gods  "  (Dent.  xii.  31).  This  was  the  way  in  which  the  heathen 
worshipped  their  gods,  and  instead  of  such  a  sacrifice  we  have  the  burning  of 
a  pigeon  or  a  handful  of  flour  in  our  worship.  In  accordance  with  this  fact, 
the  Israelites,  when  disobedient,  were  rebuked  by  God  as  follows  :  **  O  My 
people,  what  have  I  done  unto  thee  ?  and  wherein  have  I  w  '  '  thcc  ? 
Testify  against  me"  (Mic.  .vi.  3).  Again,  "  Have  I  been  a  w:'-..:..>  .  unto 
Israel  ?  a  land  of  darkness  ?  Wherefore  say  my  people,  \Vc  arc  miserable  ; 
we  will  come  no  more  unto  thee"  (Jer.  ii.  31);  that  is  to  say.  Through 
which  of  the  commandments  has  the  Law  become  burdensome  to  the  hracl- 
ites,  that  they  renounce  it  ?  In  the  same  manner  God  asks  the  pcttpic, 
"  What  iniquity  have  your  fathers  found  in  me,  that  they  arc  gone  far  from 
me  ?  "  etc.  {ibid.  ii.  5).     All  these  passages  express  one  and  the  same  idea. 

This  is  the  great  principle  which  you  must  never  lose  sight  of.  After 
having  stated  this  principle,  I  repeat  that  the  object  of  the  Sanctuary  was  to 
create  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  enter  it  certain  feelings  of  awe  and  rever- 
ence, in  accordance  with  the  command,  "  You  shall  reverence  my  sanctuary  " 
(Lev.  xix.  30).  But  when  we  continually  see  an  object,  however  sublime  ii 
may  be,  our  regard  for  that  object  will  be  lessened,  and  the  impression  we 
have  received  of  it  vnll  be  weakened.  Our  Sages,  considering  this  fact,  «id 
that  we  should  not  enter  the  Temple  whenever  we  liked,  and  pointed  to  the 
words :  "  Make  thy  foot  rare  in  the  house  of  thy  friend  "  (Pruv.  xxv.  17). 
For  this  reason  the  unclean  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  Sanctuar)',  although 
there  are  so  many  kinds  of  uncleanliness,  that  [at  a  time]  only  a  few 
people  are  clean.  For  even  if  a  person  does  not  touch  a  beast  that  died  of 
its  own  accord  (Lev.  xi.  27),  he  can  scarcely  avoid  touching  one  of  ihc  eight 
kinds  of  creeping  animals  {ibid.  29,  seq),  the  dead  bodies  of  which  wc  find 
at  all  times  in  houses,  in  food  and  drink,  and  upon  which  wc  frequency  tread 
wherever  we  walk;  and,  if  he  avoids  touching  these,  he  may  touch  a  woman  in 
her  separation  {ibid.  xv.  18),  or  a  male  or  female  that  have  a  running  issue  {ibid. 
ver.  I,  sea.  and  25,  seq),  or  a  leper  {ibid.  xiii.  46),  or  their  l>cd  {ibid.  xv.  5). 


not  being  enabled  to  enter  the  Sanctuary  at  night  time,  although  he  .$  clean 
after  sunset,  as  may  be  inferred  from  Mtddot  and  Tamul,  he  .$  aRiin,  during 
the  night,  subject  to  becoming  unclean  either  by  cohabiting  with  his  wife  or 
by  some  other  source  of  uncleanliness,  and  may  rise  in  the  morning  in  the 
same  condition  as  the  day  before.  All  this  serves  to  keep  people  away  from 
the  Sanctuary,  and  to  prevent  them  from  entering  it  whenever  they  liked. 
Our  Sages,  as  is  weU  known,  said,  "  Even  a  clean  person  may  not  enter  the 


368  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

Sanctuary  for  the  purpose  of  performing  divine  service,  unless  he  takes  pre- 
viously a  bath."  By  such  acts  the  reverence  [for  the  Sanctuary]  will  con- 
tinue, the  right  impression  will  be  produced  which  leads  man,  as  is  intended, 
to  humility. 

The  easier  the  diffusion  of  uncleanliness  is,  the  more  difficult  and  the  more 
retarded  is  its  purification.  Most  easily  is  uncleanliness  communicated  by 
the  dead  body  to  those  who  are  under  the  same  roof,  especially  to  relatives. 
The  purification  can  only  be  completed  by  means  of  the  ashes  of  the  red 
heifer,  however  scarce  it  may  be,  and  only  in  seven  days  (Num.  xix.  ll). 
The  uncleanness  caused  by  a  woman  having  running  issue  or  during  her 
separation  is  more  frequent  than  that  caused  by  contact  with  unclean  objects  ; 
seven  days  are  therefore  required  for  their  purification  (Lev.  xv.  19,  28), 
whilst  those  that  touch  them  are  only  unclean  one  dsiv  (ibid.  \n.iS).  Males 
or  females  that  are  unclean  through  running  issue,  and  a  woman  after  child- 
birth, must  in  addition  bring  a  sacrifice,  because  their  uncleanness  occurs 
less  frequently  than  that  of  women  in  their  separation.  All  these  cases  of 
uncleanliness,  viz.,  running  issue  of  males  or  females,  menstruations,  leprosy, 
dead  bodies  of  human  beings,  carcases  of  beasts  and  creeping  things,  and  issue 
of  semen,  are  sources  of  dirt  and  filth.  We  have  thus  shown  that  the  above 
precepts  are  very  useful  in  many  respects.  First,  they  keep  us  at  a  distance 
from  dirty  and  filthy  objects ;  secondly,  they  guard  the  Sanctuary  ;  thirdly, 
they  pay  regard  to  an  established  custom  (for  the  Sabeans  submitted  to  very 
troublesome  restrictions  when  unclean,  as  you  will  soon  hear)  ;  fourthly, 
they  lightened  that  burden  for  us ;  for  we  are  not  impeded  through  these 
laws  in  our  ordinary  occupations  by  the  distinction  the  Law  makes  between 
that  which  is  unclean  and  that  which  is  clean.  For  this  distinction  applies 
only  in  reference  to  the  Sanctuary  and  the  holy  objects  connected  with  it ; 
it  does  not  apply  to  other  cases.  "  She  shall  touch  no  hallowed  thing,  nor 
come  into  the  Sanctuary  "  (Lev.  xii.  4).  Other  persons  [that  do  not  intend  to 
enter  the  Sanctuary  or  touch  any  holy  thing],  are  not  guilty  of  any  sin  if  they 
remain  unclean  as  long  as  they  like,  and  eat,  according  to  their  pleasure, 
ordinary  food  that  has  been  in  contact  with  unclean  things.  But  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Sabeans,  even  at  present  general  in  the  East,  among  the  few  still 
left  of  the  Magi,  was  to  keep  a  menstruous  woman  in  a  house  by  herself,  to 
burn  that  upon  which  she  treads,  and  to  consider  as  unclean  every  one  that 
speaks  with  her  ;  even  if  a  wind  passed  over  her  and  a  clean  person,  the  latter 
was  unclean  in  the  eyes  of  the  Sabeans.  See  the  difference  between  this 
practice  and  our  rule,  that  "  whatever  services  a  wife  generally  does  to  her 
husband,  she  may  do  to  him  in  her  separation  "  ;  only  cohabitation  is  pro- 
hibited during  the  days  of  her  uncleanness.  Another  custom  among  the 
Sabeans,  which  is  still  widespread,  is  this  :  whatever  is  separated  from  the 
body,  as  hair,  nail,  or  blood,  is  unclean  ;  every  barber  is  therefore  unclean  in 
their  estimation,  because  he  touches  blood  and  hair ;  whenever  a  person  passes 
a  razor  over  his  skin  he  must  take  a  bath  in  running  water.  Such  burdensome 
practices  were  numerous  among  the  Sabeans,  whilst  we  apply  the  laws  that 
distinguish  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean  only  with  regard  to  hallowed 
things  and  to  the  Sanctuary.  The  divine  words,  "  And  ye  shall  sanctify  your- 
selves, and  ye  shall  be  holy  "  (Lev.  xi.  44),  do  not  refer  to  these  laws  at  all. 
According  to  Sifra,  they  refer  to  sanctity  by  obedience  to  God's  command- 


THE    DIVINE    COMMASDMENTS  369 

menls.  The  s.iinc  iiucrprctalion  is  ^,MVfn  in  Sifra  of  the  w<»ril»,  "  Yc  ilull 
be  holy,"  i.e.  obedient  to  liis  comnundmcnis  (xij.  2).  Ilcncc  the 
transgression  of  commandments  is  also  called  unclcanlincM  or  defile* 
ment.  This  term  is  especially  used  of  the  chief  and  primipal  crimi»,  which 
are  idolatry,  adultery,  and  murder.  In  reference  t<>  idnlatry  it  u  uid, 
"  He  hath  given  of  his  seed  unto  Molech  to  defile  my  sanctuary,  and  to 
profane  my  holy  name  "  {ibid.  xx.  3).  In  reference  to  adultery  wc  read, 
"  Defile  not  ye  yourselves  in  any  of  these  thinj^n  "  {ibid,  xviii.  24),  and 
"  Defile  not  the  land  "  (Num.  xxxv.  34)  in  reference  to  murder.  It  i»  ihTr- 
fore  clear  that  the  term  "defilement"  [or  uncleanlincss]  is  used  h«' 
mously  of  three  things:    I.  Of  man's  violation  and  tr.r  ^i 

which  he  is  commanded  as  regards  his  actions  and  his  opi;.  .:    <  '      irt 

and  filth  ;  comp.  "  Her  filthincss  in  her  skirts  "  (Lam.  i.  9).  3.  Of  the  above- 
named  imaginary  defilement  such  as  touching  and  carrying  certain  object*, 
or  being  with  them  under  the  same  roof.  In  reference  to  the  third  kind, 
our  Sages  said,  The  words  of  the  Law  are  not  subject  to  becoming  unclean 
(B.  T.  Ber.  22a).  In  the  same  manner  the  term  "  holiness  "  is  used  hoinonjr- 
mously  of  three  things  corresponding  to  the  three  kinds  of  ui'  '  *.     Ai 

uncleanness  caused  by  a  dead  body  could  only  be  removed  af  •.. :  -  . .  .1  days, 
by  means  of  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  and  the  priests  had  constantly  occaiion 
to  enter  the  Sanctuary,  the  Law  exceptionally  forbids  them  to  defile  them- 
selves by  a  dead  body  (Lev.  xxi.  i),  except  in  cases  where  defilement  is  neces- 
sary, and  the  contrary  would  be  unnatural.  For  it  would  be  unnatural  lo 
abstain  from  approaching  the  dead  body  of  a  parent,  child,  or  brother.  As 
it  was  very  necessary  that  the  high-priest  should  alu'jys  be  in  the  Sanctuary, 
in  accordance  with  the  Divine  command,  "  And  it  shall  always  be  on  hU 
forehead  "  (Exod.  xxviii.  38),  he  was  not  permitted  to  defile  himself  by  any 
dead  body  whatever,  even  of  the  above-named  relatives  (Ixrv.  xxi.  lO-ll). 
Women  were  not  engaged  in  sacrificial  service  ;  the  above  lav.  'Ay 

does  not  apply  to  women  ;   it  is  addressed  to  "  the  sons  of  .A..  -)t 

to  "  the  daughters  of  Aaron."  It  was,  however,  impossible  to  assume  that 
none  of  the  Israelites  made  a  mistake,  by  entering  the  S.r    •  -g 

hallowed  things  in  a  state  of  unclcanliness.  It  was  even  j  ■  ...  ;.-.  ;■•-■« 
were  persons  who  did  this  knowingly,  since  there  arc  wicked  pc<.ple  who 
commit  knowingly  even  the  greatest  crimes ;  for  this  reason  certain  Mcn6c« 
were  commanded  as  an  atonement  for  the  defilement  of  the  ^  •     nd 

its  hallowed  things.     They  were  of  different  k.nds ;    some  .■:  <-u 

for  defilement  caused  ignorantly,  others  for  dc-filement  caused  knowinRly 
For  this  purpose  were  brought  the  goats  on  the  Festivals  and  the  New^moon 
days  (I^um.  xxviii.  15,  22,  etc.),  and  the  goat  sent  away  on  thcD^y"*  Atone- 
ment  (Lev.  xvi.  16),  as  is  explained  m  its  place  (Mi.hnah  i^^;^^'"^  lid 
These  sacrifices  serve  to  prevent  those  who  defiled  the  Sanctuarj  of  the  Ix>  d 
knowingly  from  thinking  that  they  had  not  done  a  great  wron,- ;  t  -Id 

know  that  they  obtained  atonement  by  the  sacrihce  of  ^'^^  ^^^.V...  ,  .J^ 
savs  "  That  they  die  not  in  their  uncleanness  (Lev.  xv.  3O  ;  Ij'^  f)*^^ 
7^;  beir  the  iniquity  of  the  holy  things  "  (Exod.  xxviii.  38).    Thu  .dea  u 

^Thr;tS::^hrough  .prosy  we  have  already  explained  Oar  Saj- 
have  also  clearly  stated  tl.e  meaning  thereof.     AU  agree  tlut  lepru.7  u  » 


370  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

punishment  for  slander.  The  disease  begins  in  the  walls  of  the  houses 
(Lev.  xiv.  33,  seq.).  If  the  sinner  repents,  the  object  is  attained  ;  if  he  re- 
mains in  his  disobedience,  the  disease  affects  his  bed  and  house  furniture  ; 
if  he  still  continues  to  sin,  the  leprosy  attacks  his  own  garments,  and  then  his 
body.  This  is  a  miracle  received  in  our  nation  by  tradition,  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  effect  of  the  trial  of  a  faithless  wife  (Num.  v.  II,  seq.).  The 
good  effect  of  this  belief  is  evident.  Leprosy  is  besides  a  contagious  disease, 
and  people  almost  naturally  abhor  it,  and  keep  away  from  it.  The  purifi- 
cation was  effected  by  cedar-wood,  hyssop,  scarlet  thread,  and  two  birds 
(Lev.  xiv.  4)  ;  their  reason  is  stated  in  various  Midrashic  sayings,  but  the 
explanation  does  not  agree  with  our  theory.  I  do  not  know  at  present  the 
reason  of  any  of  these  things ;  nor  why  cedar-wood,  hyssop,  and  scarlet  were 
used  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  red  heifer  (Num.  xix.  6)  ;  nor  why  a  bundle  of 
hyssop  was  commanded  for  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  Passover-lamb 
(Exod.  xii.  22).  I  cannot  find  any  principle  upon  which  to  found  an  ex- 
planation why  these  particular  things  have  been  chosen. 

The  red  heifer  is  called  a  sin-offering,  because  it  effects  the  purification 
of  persons  that  have  become  unclean  through  the  dead  body  of  a  human 
being,  and  enables  them  to  enter  the  Sanctuary  [and  to  eat  of  hallowed 
things].  The  idea  taught  by  this  law  is  this  :  Those  who  have  defiled 
themselves  would  never  be  allowed  to  enter  the  Sanctuary,  or  to  partake  of 
holy  things,  were  it  not  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  red  heifer,  by  which  this  sin  is 
removed  ;  in  the  same  manner  as  the  plate  [which  the  high-priest  wears  on 
his  forehead]  atones  for  uncleanness,  and  as  a  similar  object  is  attained  by  the 
goats  that  are  burnt.  For  this  reason  those  were  unclean  who  were  engaged 
in  the  sacrifice  of  the  heifer  or  the  goats  which  were  burnt,  and  even  their 
garments  were  unclean.  The  same  was  the  law  in  the  case  of  the  goat  that 
was  sent  away  [on  the  Day  of  Atonement]  ;  for  it  was  believed  that  it  made 
unclean  those  who  touched  it,  because  it  carried  off  so  manv  sins. 

We  have  now  mentioned  the  reasons  for  those  commandments  of  this  class, 
for  which  we  were  able  to  give  a  satisfactory  reason  according  to  our  view. 

CHAPTER  XLVIII 

The  precepts  of  the  thirteenth  class  are  those  which  we  have  enumerated  in 
the  "  Laws  concerning  forbidden  food  "  (Hilkot  maakalot  asurot),  "  Laws 
concerning  killing  animals  for  food  "  {Hilkot  shehitah),  and  "  Laws  con- 
cerning vows  and  Nazaritism "  {Hilkot  nedarim  u-nezirot).  We  have 
fully  and  very  explicitly  discussed  the  object  of  this  class  in  this  treatise,  and 
in  our  Commentary  on  the  Sayings  of  the  Fathers.  We  vvall  here  add  a  few 
remarks  in  reviewing  the  single  commandments  which  are  mentioned  there. 
I  maintain  that  the  food  which  is  forbidden  by  the  Law  is  unwholesome. 
There  is  nothing  among  the  forbidden  kinds  of  food  whose  injurious  char- 
acter is  doubted,  except  pork  (Lev.  xi.  7),  and  fat  {ibid.  vii.  23).  But  also 
in  these  cases  the  doubt  is  not  justified.  For  pork  contains  more  moisture 
than  necessary  [for  human  food],  and  too  much  of  superfluous  matter.  The 
principal  reason  why  the  Law  forbids  swane's  flesh  is  to  be  found  in  the  cir- 
cumstance that  its  habits  and  its  food  are  very  dirty  and  loathsome.  It  has 
already  been  pointed  out  how  emphatically  the  Law  enjoins  the  removal  of 


THE    DIVINE    COMMWnMENTS  371 

the  sight  of  loathsome  objects,  even  in  the  fickl  and  in  ilic  camp  ;  how  much 
more  objectionable  is  such  a  sight  in  towns.     Hut  if  it  were  jIIdwcJ  td  cat 

swine's  flesh,  the  streets  and  liouses  would  be  more  dirty  than  any  < \  »% 

may  be  seen  at  present  in  the  country  of  the  Franks.      A  sayinj;  of  .  r« 

declares :  "  The  mouth  of  a  swine  is  as  dirty  as  dung  itself  "  (B.T.  Bcr.  254). 
The  fat  of  the  intestines  makes  us  full,  interrupts  our  di 

duces  cold  and  thick  blood  ;  it  is  more  fit  for  fuel  [than  for        .  ^. 

Blood  (Lev.  xvii.  12),  and  ncbdah,  i.e.,  the  flesh  of  an  animal  that  died  of 
itself  (Deut.  xiv.  21),  are  indigestible,  and  injurious  as  food  ;  Trffah,  an  animal 
in  a  diseased  state  (Exod.  xxii.  30),  is  on  the  way  of  becoming  a  nrbflah. 

The  characteristics  given  in  the  Law  (Lev.  xi.,  and  Dcut.  xiv.)of  the  prr- 
mitted  animals,  viz.,  chewing  the  cud  and  divided  hoofs  for  cattle,  and  fins 
and  scales  for  fish,  are  in  themselves  neither  the  cause  of  the  permiision  when 
they  are  present,  nor  of  the  prohibition  when  they  arc  absent;  but  merely 
signs  by  which  the  recommended  species  of  animals  can  be  discerned  from 
those  that  are  forbidden. 

The  reason  why  the  sinew  that  shrank  is  prohibited  is  stated  in  the  Law 
(Gen.  xxxii.  33). 

It  is  prohibited  to  cut  off  a  limb  of  a  living  animal  and  cat  it,  bccau»c 
such  act  would  produce  cruelty,  and  develop  it ;  besides,  the  heathen  kinjfi 
used  to  do  it ;  it  was  also  a  kind  of  idolatrous  worship  to  cut  off  a  certain 
limb  of  a  living  animal  and  to  cat  it. 

Meat  boiled  in  milk  is  undoubtedly  gross  food,  and  makes  overfull  ;  but 
I  think  that  most  probably  it  is  also  prohibited  because  it  is  som-  '  ■>- 

nected  with  idolatry,  forming  perhaps  part  of  the  service,  or  bcir.^  n 

some  festival  of  the  heathen.  I  find  a  support  for  this  view  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  Law  mentions  the  prohibition  twice  after  the  commandment 
given  concerning  the  festivals  "  Three  times  in  the  year  all  thy  males  shall 
appear  before  the  Lord  God  "  (Exod.  xxiii.  17,  and  xxxiv.  23),  as  if  to  say, 
"  When  you  come  before  me  on  your  festivals,  do  not  seethe  your  food  in 
the  manner  as  the  heathen  used  to  do."     This  I  consider  as  the  1  ^n 

for  the  prohibition  ;    but  as  far  as  I  have  seen  the  books  on  S..':  .  s 

nothing  is  mentioned  of  this  custom. 

The  commandment  concerning  the  killing  of  animals  is  necessary,  became 
the  natural  food  of  man  consists  of  vegetables  and  of  the  flesh  of  animals; 
the  best  meat  is  that  of  animals  permitted  to  be  used  as  food.  No  diKtor 
has  any  doubts  about  this.  Since,  therefore,  the  desire  of  procunng  ^ 
food  necessitates  the  slaying  of  animals,  the  L.iw  enjoins  that  the  death  of 
the  animal  should  be  the  easiest.  It  is  not  allowed  to  torment  the  animal 
by  cutting  the  throat  in  a  clumsy  manner,  by  poleaxing,  or  by  cuttmg  off  1 
Hmb  whilst  the  animal  is  alive. 

It  is  also  prohibited  to  kill  an  animal  with  its  young  on  the  same  day  (Let. 
xxii.  28),  in  order  that  people  should  be  restrained  and  prevented  from  k.lhng 
the  two  together  In  such  a  manner  that  the  young  is  slam  m  the  sight  of  the 
mother;  for  the  pain  of  the  animals  under  such  circumstances  is  Tery  greal 
There  is  no  difference  in  this  case  between  the  pam  of  man  and  the  pa.n  ol 
other  living  beings,  since  the  love  and  tenderness  of  the  mother  for  her  young 
ones  is  not  produced  by  reasoning,  but  by  imagination,  and  th.,  ^jculty  c^so 
not  only  in  man  but  in  most  living  beings.     This  law  applies  only  to  01  .od 


372  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

lamb,  because  of  the  domestic  animals  used  as  food  these  alone  are  permitted 
to  us,  and  in  these  cases  the  mother  recognises  her  voune. 

The  same  reason  applies  to  the  law  which  enjoins  that  we  should  let  the 
mother  fly  away  when  we  take  the  young.  The  eggs  over  which  the  bird  sits, 
and  the  young  ]^that  are  in  need  of  their  mother,  are  generally  unfit  for  food, 
and  when  the  mother  is  sent  away  she  does  not  see  the  taking  of  her  young 
ones,  and  does  not  feel  any  pain.  In  most  cases,  however,  this  command- 
ment will  cause  man  to  leave  the  whole  nest  untouched,  because  [the  young 
or  the  eggs],  wliich  he  is  allowed  to  take,  are,  as  a  rule,  unfit  for  food.  If  the 
Law  provides  that  such  grief  should  not  be  caused  to  cattle  or  birds,  how 
much  more  careful  must  we  be  that  we  should  not  cause  grief  to  our  fellow- 
men.  When  in  the  Talmud  (Ber.  p,  33^)  those  are  blamed  who  use  in 
their  prayer  the  phrase,  "  Thy  mercy  extendeth  to  young  birds,"  it  is  the 
expression  of  the  one  of  the  two  opinions  mentioned  by  us,  namely,  that  the 
precepts  of  the  Law  have  no  other  reason  but  the  Divine  will.  We  follow 
the  other  opinion. 

The  reason  why  we  cover  the  blood  when  we  kill  animals,  and  why  we  do 
it  only  when  we  kill  clean  beasts  and  clean  birds,  has  already  been  explained 
by  us  (supra,  chap,  xlvi.,  p.  362). 

In  addition  to  the  things  prohibited  by  the  Law,  we  are  also  commanded 
to  observe  the  prohibitions  enjoined  by  our  own  vows  (Num.  xxx.).  If  we 
say,  This  bread  or  this  meat  is  forbidden  for  us,  we  are  not  allowed  to  partake 
of  that  food.  The  object  of  that  precept  is  to  train  us  in  temperance,  that  we 
should  be  able  to  control  our  appetites  for  eating  and  drinking.  Our  Sages 
say  accordingly,  "  Vows  are  a  fence  for  abstinence."  As  women  are  easily 
provoked  to  anger,  owing  to  their  greater  excitability  and  the  weakness  of 
their  mind,  their  oaths,  if  entirely  under  their  own  control,  would  cause 
great  grief,  quarrel,  and  disorder  in  the  family ;  one  kind  of  food  would  be 
allowed  for  the  husband,  and  forbidden  for  the  wife  ;  another  kind  forbidden 
for  the  daughter,  and  allowed  for  the  mother.  Therefore  the  Law  gives 
the  father  of  the  family  control  over  the  vows  of  those  dependent  on  him. 
A  woman  that  is  independent,  and  not  under  the  authority  of  a  chief  of  the 
family,  is,  as  regards  vows,  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  men  ;  I  mean  a  woman 
that  has  no  husband,  or  that  has  no  father,  or  that  is  of  age,  i.e.,  twelve  years 
and  six  months. 

The  object  of  Nazaritism  (Num.  vi.)  is  obvious.  It  keeps  away  from  wine 
that  has  ruined  people  in  ancient  and  modern  times.  "  Many  strong  men 
have  been  slain  by  it  "  (Prov.  xxvii.  26).  "  But  they  also  have  erred  through 
wine,  .  .  .  the  priest  and  the  prophet  "  (Isa.  xxviii.  7).  In  the  law  about 
the  Nazarite  we  notice  even  the  prohibition,  "  he  shall  eat  nothing  that  is 
made  of  the  vine  tree  "  (Num.  vi.  4),  as  an  additional  precaution,  implying 
the  lesson  that  man  must  take  of  wincVnly  as  much  as  is  absolutely  necessary. 
For  he  who  abstains  from  drinking  it  is  called  "  holy  "  ;  his  sanctity  is  made 
equal  to  that  of  the  high-priest,  in  not  being  allowed  to  defile  himself  even 
to  his  father,  to  his  mother,  and  the  like.  This  honour  is  given  him  because 
he  abstains  from  wine. 

CHAPTER  XLIX 
The  precepts  of  the  fourteenth  class  are  those  which  we  enumerated  in  the 
Section  on  Women,  the  Laws  concerning  forbidden  sexual  intercourse,  and 


rilE    DIVINE    COMMANDMliSTS  373 

cross-breeding  of  cattle  (Sff/r  nushim,  Htlkot  inure  biah  ve-kal/^  - 

Tlie  law  concerning  circumcision  lu-loni^s  also  to  this  cUm. 

purpose  of  these  precepts  has  already  been  described  by  ui.     \\c  Mill  iio* 

proceed  to  explain  them  singly. 

It  is  well  known  that  man  requires  friends  all  hi»  lifetime.  Ariitotlc  ci- 
plains  this  in  the  ninth  book  of  his  Nikomachcan  EtKic».  When  nun  it  in 
good  health  and  prosperous,  he  enjoys  the  company  of  his  '         '  ■   -.c 

of  trouble  he  is  in  need  of   them  ;   in  old  age,  when  hi»  V  n 

assisted  by  them.     This  love  is  more  frequent  and  more  intense  between 
parents  and  children,  and  among  [other]  relations.     Perfect  1 
hood,  and  mutual  assistance  is  only  found  among  those  near  ;  r 

by  relationship.     The  members  of  a  family  united  by  common  :n 

the  same  grandfather,  or  even  from  some  more  distant  ancestor,  have  towards 
each  other  a  certain  feeling  of  love,  help  each  other,  and  sympat'  •  '\\ 
each  other.    Toeffectthisisoneof  the  chief  purposes  of  the  Law.    Pr  il 

harlots  were  therefore  not  tolerated  in  Israel  (Deut.  xxiii.  18),  because  their 
existence  would  disturb  the  above  relationship  between  man  and  man. 
Their  children  are  strangers  to  everybody  ;  no  one  V-  •  •  >  what  family 
they  belong ;   nor  does  any  person  recognize  them  as  r  And  thi<  is 

the  greatest  misfortune  that  can  befall  any  child  or  father.     Another  i: 
tant  object  in  prohibiting  prostitution  is  to  restrain  cxtciMvc  ■  ^1 

lust;   for  lust  increases  with  the  variety  of  its  objects.     The  s:.  -:  to 

which  a  person  has  been  accustomed  for  a  long  time  docs  not  such 

an  ardent  desire  for  its  enjoyment  as  is  produced  by  objects  new  in  iorm  and 
character.     Another  effect  of  this  prohibition  is  the  removal  ■  '  -  '•>x 

strife;   for  if  the  prohibition  did  not  exist,  several  persons  mi,,  >c 

come  to  one  woman,  and  would  naturally  quarrel  with  each  other ;  they 
would  in  many  cases  kill  one  another,  or  they  would  kill  the  v.  is 

is  known  to  have  occurred  in  days  of  old,  "  And  they  asscmbl.  .  rs 

by  troops  in  a  harlot's  house  "  (Jer.  v.  7).     In  order  to  prevent  t  it 

evils,  and  to  efTect  the  great  boon  that  all  men  should  know  their  re  p 

to  each  other,  prostitutes  (Deut.  xxiii.  17)  were  not  •   '  '  •»' 

intercourse  was    only  permitted  when   man   has  chi  <". 

and  married  her  openly  ;  for  if  it  sufficed  merely  to  choose  her,  man?  a  per- 
son would  bring  a  prostitute  into  his  house  at  a  certain  tim<  n 
between  them,  and  say  that  she  was  his  wife.  T'  '  '  '  ■  "  '^J 
to  perform  the  act  of  engagement  by  which  he  .i(  '" 
her  to  take  her  for  his  wife,  and  then  to  go  through  the  pubhc  ceremony  of 
marriage.  Comp.  "  And  Boaz  took  ten  men,"  etc.  (Ruth  iv.  2).  It  nujr 
happen  that  husband  and  wife  do  not  agree,  live  without  love  and  T^^^^^ 
do  not  enjoy  the  benefit  of  a  home  ;  in  that  case  he  .5  permitted  to  send  hcf 
away.  If  he  had  been  allowed  to  divorce  her  by  a  mere  xvnrd.  or  .  A 
her  out  of  his  house,  the  wife  would  wait  f<.r 

of  the  husband],  and  then  come  out  and  say  tlu.  .    .    .    ».    i....JJ 

committed  adultery,  she  and  the  adulterer  would  contend  that  she  had  then 
been  divorced.     Therefore  the  law  is  that  divorce  can  ;  '7 

means  of  a  document  which  can  serve  as  evidence,      H-  '  — 

of  divorcement"  (Deut.  xxiv.  l).     There  are  M"'"  "/^ 

picion  of  adultery  and  doubts  concerning  the  conduct  ot  the  wue.     Uw, 


374  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

concerning  a  wife  suspected  of  adultery  (sotah)  are  therefore  prescribed 
(Num.  V.)  ;  the  eflFect  of  which  is  that  the  wife,  out  of  fear  of  the  "  bitter 
waters,"  is  most  careful  to  prevent  any  ill-feeling  on  the  part  of  her  husband 
against  her.  Even  of  those  that  felt  quite  innocent  and  safe  most  were  rather 
willing  to  lose  all  their  property  than  to  submit  to  the  prescribed  treatment ; 
even  death  was  preferred  to  the  public  disgrace  of  uncovering  the  head,  un- 
doing the  hair,  rending  the  garments  and  exposing  the  heart,  and  being  led 
round  through  the  Sanctuary  in  the  presence  of  all,  of  women  and  men,  and 
also  in  the  presence  of  the  members  of  the  Synhedrion.  The  fear  of  this  trial 
keeps  away  great  diseases  that  ruin  the  home  comfort. 

As  every  maiden  expects  to  be  married,  her  seducer  therefore  is  only 
ordered  to  marry  her  ;  for  he  is  undoubtedly  the  fittest  husband  for  her. 
He  will  better  heal  her  wound  and  redeem  her  character  than  any  other 
husband.  If,  however,  he  is  rejected  by  her  or  her  father,  he  must  give  the 
dowry  (Exod.  xxii.  15).  If  he  uses  violence  he  has  to  submit  to  the  additional 
punishment,  "  he  may  not  put  her  away  all  his  days  "  (Deut.  xxii.  29). 

The  reason  of  the  law  concerning  marrj-ing  the  deceased  brother's  wife  is 
stated  in  the  Bible  (Deut.  xxv.  5).  It  was  a  custom  in  force  before  the  Law 
was  given,  and  the  Law  perpetuated  it.  The  ceremony  of  halizah  {ibid. 
6,  seq.),  "  taking  off  the  shoe,"  has  been  introduced,  because  in  those  days 
it  was  considered  disgraceful  to  go  through  that  ceremony,  and  in  order  to 
avoid  the  disgrace,  a  person  might  perhaps  be  induced  to  marry  his  deceased 
brother's  wife.  This  is  evident  from  the  words  of  the  Law  :  "  So  shaU  it 
be  done  unto  that  man  that  will  not  build  up  his  brother's  house.  And  his 
name  shall  be  called  in  Israel,  The  house  of  him  that  hath  his  shoe  loosed  " 
(Deut.  xxv.  9).  In  the  action  of  Judah  we  may  perhaps  notice  an  example 
of  a  noble  conduct,  and  uprightness  in  judgment.  He  said  :  "  Let  her  take 
it  to  her,  lest  we  be  shamed  ;  behold,  I  sent  this  kid,  and  thou  hast  not  found 
her  "  (Gen.  xxxviii.  23).  For  before  the  Lawgiving,  the  intercourse  with  a 
harlot  was  as  lawful  as  cohabitation  of  husband  and  wife  since  the  Law- 
giving ;  it  was  perfectly  permitted,  nobody  considered  it  wrong.  The  hire 
which  was  in  those  days  paid  to  the  harlot  in  accordance  with  a  previous 
agreement,  corresponds  to  the  ketubah  which  in  our  days  the  husband  pays 
to  his  wife  when  he  divorces  her.  It  is  a  just  claim  on  the  part  of  the  wife, 
and  the  husband  is  bound  to  pay  it.  The  words  of  Judah,  "  Let  her  take  it 
to  her,  lest  we  be  shamed,"  etc.,  show  that  conversation  about  sexual  inter- 
course, even  of  that  which  is  permitted,  brings  shame  upon  us ;  it  is  proper 
to  be  silent  about  it,  to  keep  it  secret,  even  if  the  silence  would  lead  to  loss 
of  money.  In  this  sense  Judah  said  :  It  is  better  for  us  to  lose  property,  and 
to  let  her  keep  what  she  has,  than  to  make  our  affair  public  by  inquiring  after 
her,  and  bring  still  more  shame  upon  us.  This  is  the  lesson,  as  regards  con- 
duct, to  be  derived  from  this  incident.  As  to  the  uprightness  to  be  learned 
therefrom,  it  is  contained  in  the  words  of  Judah  when  he  wanted  to  show 
that  he  had  not  robbed  her,  that  he  has  not  in  the  least  departed  from  his 
agreement  with  her.  For  he  said,  "  Behold,  I  sent  this  kid,  and  thou  hast 
not  found  her."  The  kid  was  probably  very  good,  therefore  he  points  to  it, 
saying,  "  this  kid."  This  is  the  uprightness  which  he  had  inherited  from 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  :  that  man  must  not  depart  from  his  given  word, 
nor  deviate  from  what  he  agreed  upon  ;   but  he  must  give  to  others  all  that 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS 


375 

is  due  to  them.     It  makes  no  difference  whether  he  hold,  a  jx^rtioo  ol  lu. 
neighbour  s  property  as  a  h,an  or  a  trust,  or  whether  he  U  in  iny  other  w.y 

his  neighbour  s  debtor,  owing  him  wages  or  the  hLe. 

The  sum  which   the  husband   settles    upon    his   wife   (hluhjh)  U  m  I* 
treated  in  the  same  way  as  the  wages  of  a  hired  servant.    There  it  no  differ- 
ence whether  a  master  withholds  the  wages  of  a  hired  servant,  or  deprive*  h» 
wife  of  that  which  is  due  to  her  ;   whether  a  master  wrongs  a  '       ' 
and  brings  charges  against  him  with  the  intention  to  send  him  .  ..    . 
payment,  or  a  husband  treats  his  wife  in  a  manner  that  would  enable  hi 
send  her  away  without  the  payment  of  the  promised  sum. 

The  equity  of  tlic  statutes  and  judgments  of  the  Law  in  this  re;---  ' 
be  noticed  in  the  treatment  of  a  person  accused  of  spreading  an  c. 
about  his  wife  (Deut.  xxii.  13,  scq.).     There  is  no  doubt  that  the  man  that 
did  this  is  bad,  docs  not  love  his  wife,  and  is  not   :  '         '      ■•'    • 
desired  to  divorce  her  in  a  regular  manner,  there  is  :     .      ..;  : 
but  he  would  be  bound  to  give  her  what  is  due  unto  her  ;  but  instead  ot 
"  he  gives  occasion  of  speech  against  her  "  (ibid.  xxii.  14),  in  order  t<.  jjct  nd 
of  his  wife  without  paying  anything;   he  slanders  her,  and  uit  -    '  '    ■       \ 
in  order  to  keep  in  his  possession  the  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  the  d  , 

the  Law  for  maidens,  which  he  is  obliged  to  pay  unto  her.     He  is  therefore 
sentenced  to  pay  one  hundred  shekels  of  silver,  in  accordance  with  the  prin- 
ciple, "Whom  the  judges  shall  condemn,  he  shall  pay  double  unt<»  '   ■ 
neighbour  "  (Exod.  xxii.  9).     The  Law  is  also  analogous  to  that  about  :..: 
witnesses,  which  we  have  explained  above  (chap.  xli.  p.  195).     For  he  in- 
tended to  cheat  her  of  her  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  he  must  thr-^  '       '    ''''■. 
and]  pay  her  a  hundred  shekels.    Tliis  is  his  punishment  for  v, 
her  her  due,  and  endeavouring  to  keep  it.     But  in  so  far  as  he  degraded  her, 
and  spread  the  rumour  that  she  was  guilty  of  misconduct,  he  wis 
graded,  and  received  stripes,  as  is  implied  in  the  words,  "and  li..; 
chastise  him  "  (Deut.  xxii.  i8).     But  he  sinned  besides  in  clinging  to  ". 
and  seeking  only  that  which  gave  pleasure  to  him  ;  he  was  therefore  punished 
by  being  compelled  to  keep  his  wife  always,  "  he  may  not  put  ' 
his  days  "  (ibid.  19)  ;  for  he  has  been  brought  to  all  this  only  bcv-...  _  .. 
have  found  her  ugly.     Thus  are  these  bad  habits  cured  when  they  are  trca' 
according  to  the   divine  Law ;   the  ways  of  equity  arc  never  lost  sight  o(  ; 
they  are  obvious  and  discernible  in  every  precept  of  the  I>aw  by  &    -  •■ ' 
consider  it  well.     See  how,  according  to  the  L.iw,  the  slanderer  of 
who  only  intended  to  withhold  from  her  what  he  is  bound  to  rivc  her,  is 
treated  in  the  same  manner  as  a  thief  who  has  stolen  the 

neighbour  ;  and  the  false  witness  (Deut.  xix.  16, s^if.)  who  k; ; ^...   . 

although  the  injury    was  in  reality  not  inflicted,  is  punished  like    those 

who  have  actually  caused  injury  and  wrong,  viz.,  like  the  thief   and    the 

slanderer.       The  three  kinds  of  sinners    arc    tried    and  ." ;    ' 

and  the  same  law.     See  how  wonderful  are  the  divine  law?, 

wonderful  deeds.     Scripture  says  :   "  The  Rock,  His  work  is  perfect ;   for  all 

His  ways  are  judgment  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  4),  i.e.,  as  His  works  arc  :• 

so  are  His  laws  most  equitable  ;   but  our  mind  is  too  limited  to  >    ....  . 

the  perfection  of  all  His  works,  or  the  equity  of  all  His  laws ;   and  as  «^ 

able  to  comprehend  some  of  His  wonderful  works  in   the  organs  of  Unng 


376  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

beings  and  the  motions  of  the  spheres,  so  we  understand  also  the  equity  of 
some  of  His  laws ;  that  which  is  unknown  to  us  of  both  of  them  is  far  more 
than  that  which  is  known  to  us.  I  will  now  return  to  the  theme  of  the  pre- 
sent chapter. 

The  law  about  forbidden  sexual  intercourse  seeks  in  all  its  parts  to  inculcate 
the  lesson  that  we  ought  to  limit  sexual  intercourse  altogether,  hold  it  in 
contempt,  and  only  desire  it  very  rarely.  The  prohibition  of  pederasty 
(Lev.  xviii.  22)  and  carnal  intercourse  with  beasts  (ibid.  23)  is  very  clear. 
If  in  the  natural  way  the  act  is  too  base  to  be  performed  except  when  needed, 
how  much  more  base  is  it  if  performed  in  an  unnatural  manner,  and  only  for 
the  sake  of  pleasure. 

The  female  relatives  whom  a  man  may  not  marry  are  alike  in  this  respect — 
that  as  a  rule  they  are  constantly  together  wath  him  in  his  house  ;  they  would 
easily  listen  to  him,  and  do  what  he  desires ;  they  are  near  at  hand,  and  he 
would  have  no  difficulty  in  procuring  them.  No  judge  could  blame  him  if 
found  in  their  company.  If  to  these  relatives  the  same  law  applied  as  to  all 
other  unmarried  women,  if  we  were  allowed  to  marry  any  of  them,  and  were 
only  precluded  from  sexual  intercourse  with  them  without  marriage,  most 
people  would  constantly  have  become  guilty  of  misconduct  with  them. 
But  as  they  are  entirely  forbidden  to  us,  and  sexual  intercourse  vdth  them 
is  most  emphatically  denounced  unto  us  as  a  capital  crime,  or  a  sin  punishable 
with  extinction  (karet),  and  as  there  is  no  means  of  ever  legalizing  such  in- 
tercourse, there  is  reason  to  expect  that  people  will  not  seek  it,  and  will  not 
think  of  it.  That  the  persons  included  in  that  prohibition  are,  as  we  have 
stated,  at  hand  and  easily  accessible,  is  evident.  For  as  a  rule,  the  mother 
of  the  wife,  the  grandmother,  the  daughter,  the  granddaughter,  and  the 
sister-in-law,  are  mostly  with  her  ;  the  husband  meets  them  always  when 
he  goes  out,  when  he  comes  in,  and  when  he  is  at  his  work.  The  wife  stays 
also  frequently  in  the  house  of  her  husband's  brother,  father,  or  son.  It  is 
also  well  known  that  we  are  often  in  the  company  of  our  sisters,  our  aunts, 
and  the  wife  of  our  uncle,  and  are  frequently  brought  up  together  vdth  them. 
These  are  all  the  relatives  which  we  must  not  marry.  This  is  one  of  the 
reasons  why  intermarriage  with  a  near  relative  is  forbidden.  But  according 
to  my  opinion  the  prohibition  serves  another  object,  namely,  to  inculcate 
chastity  into  our  hearts.  Licence  between  the  root  and  the  branch,  between 
a  man  and  his  mother,  or  his  daughter,  is  outrageous.  The  intercourse  be- 
tween root  and  branch  is  forbidden,  and  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the 
male  element  is  the  root  or  the  branch,  or  both  root  and  branch  combine 
in  the  intercourse  vrith  a  third  person,  so  that  the  same  individual  cohabits 
with  the  root  and  with  the  branch.  On  this  account  it  is  prohibited  to 
marry  a  woman  and  her  mother,  the  wife  of  the  father  or  of  the  son  ;  for  in 
all  these  cases  there  is  the  intercourse  between  one  and  the  same  person  on 
the  one  side  and  root  and  branch  on  the  other. 

The  law  concerning  brothers  is  like  the  law  concerning  root  and  branch. 
The  sister  is  forbidden,  and  so  is  also  the  sister  of  the  wife  and  the  wife  of  the 
brother  ;  because  in  the  latter  cases  two  persons  who  are  considered  like  root 
and  branch,  cohabit  with  the  same  person.  But  in  these  prohibitions 
brothers  and  sisters  are  partly  considered  as  root  and  branch  and  partly  as 
one  body  ;    the  sister  of  the  mother  is  therefore  like  the  mother,  and  the 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS  377 

sister  of  the  father  like  the  father,  and  br)th  arc  prohibited  ;  jnd  tince  the 
daughter  of  the  parent's  brother  or  sister  is  not  included  in  t'  '       <>( 

prohibited  relatives,  so  may  we  also  marry  the  dauj.'hlcr  of  i  .r 

the  sister.  The  apparent  anomaly,  that  the  brother  of  the  father  nuy  nurry 
a  woman  that  has  been  the  wife  of  his  brother's  son,  w"   "       '  vi 

not  marry  a  woman  that  has  boen  the  wife  of  his  fathc:  ,  i- 

plained  according  to  the  above-mentioned  first  reason.     For  the  :  .  « 

frequently  in  the  house  of  his  uncle,  and  his  conduct  toward*  the  wile  o<  hit 
uncle  is  the  same  as  that  towards  his  brother's  wife.     The  ui.  '      '  r, 

is  not  so  frequent  in  the  house  of  his  nephew,  and  he  is  cor.     ,  ._»i 

intimate  with  the  wife  of  his  nephew  ;  whilst  in  the  case  of  father  and  ion, 
the  familiarity  of  the  father  with  his  daughter-in-law  is  the  »amc  as  that  of 
the  son  with  the  wife  of  his  father,  and  therefore  the  law  and  pi:-  •■' — nt 
is  the  same  for  both  [father  and  son].     The  reason  why  it  is  pn.:  to 

cohabit  with  a  menstruous  woman  (Lev,  xviii.  19)  or  with  another  man't 
wife  {ibid.  20),  is  obvious,  and  requires  no  further  explanation. 

It  is  well  known  that  we  must  not  indulge  in  any  sensual  enjoyment  what- 
ever with  the  persons  included  in  the  above  prohibitions  ;  we  must  not  even 
look  at  them  if  we  intend  to  derive  pleasure  therefrom.  We  have  explained 
this  in  "  the  laws  about  forbidden  sexual  intercourse  "  {Utlkot  iuurr  I'lah, 
xxi.  1-2),  and  shown  that  according  to  the  Law  we  must  not  even  engage 
our  thoughts  with  the  act  of  cohabitation  {ibid.  19)  or  irritate  the  org^an  of 
generation  ;  and  when  we  find  ourselves  unintentionally  in  a  stale  of  irrita- 
tion, we  must  turn  our  mind  to  other  thoughts,  and  rctlect  on  some  other 
thing  till  we  are  relieved.  Our  Sages  (B.T.  Kidd  30/^),  in  their  moral  lcis«<n», 
which  give  perfection  to  the  virtuous,  say  as  follows:  "My  son,  if  that  monster 
meets  you,  drag  it  to  the  house  of  study.    It  will  melt  if  it  is  of  it  .11 

break  in  pieces  if  it  is  of  stone:  as  is  said  in  Scripture,  '  Is  not  my  v.  a 

fire  ?  saith  the  Lord,  and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  rock  in  piece*  ? '  " 
(Jer.  xxiii.  29).  The  author  of  this  saying  thus  exhorts  his  son  to  go  to  the 
house  of  study  when  he  finds  his  organ  of  generation  in  an  irritated  state. 
By  reading,  disputing,  asking,  and  listening  to  questions,  the  irritation  will 
certainly  cease.  See  how  properly  the  term  monster  is  employed,  for  that 
irritation  is  indeed  like  a  monster.     Not  only  religion  !•      '       -'lis  lci«»n,  the 

philosophers  teach  the  same.     I  have  already  quoted  \ -a  the  words  of 

Aristotle.  He  says :  "  The  sense  of  touch  which  is  a  disgrace  10  us  lead* 
us  to  indulge  in  eating  and  sensuality,"  etc.     He  calls  people  \  who 

seek  carnal  pleasures  and  devote  themselves  to  gastror ;    'k-  v.i  ;,..unc« 

in  extenso  their  low  and  objectionable  conduct,  and  1  ihcm.     'I  hit 

passage  occurs  in  his  Etiiics  and  in  his  Rhetoric. 

In  accordance  vwth  this  excellent  principle,  which  we  ought  Mrutly  to 
follow,  our  Sages  teach  us  that  we  ought  not  to  look  at  beast*  or  bird*  in  the 
moment  of  their  copulation.  According  to  my  opinion,  this  is  the  rcamn 
why  the  cross-breeding  of  cattle  is  prohibited  (I>cv.  xix.  19).^  It  U  a  fact 
that  animals  of  different  species  do  not  copulate  tn^cthcr.  u- '  '  '  -"e. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  low  class  of  breeders  of  mules  arc  rcg.  .J 

in  this  work.  Our  Law  objected  to  it  that  any  Israelite  »hould  deKTiJe 
himself  by  doing  these  things,  which  require  so  much  vulgarity  and  in- 
decency, and  doing  that  which  rcli;,'ion  forbids  us  even  to  mention,  how 


378  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

much  more  to  witness  or  to  practise,  except  when  nocessary.  Cross- 
breeding, however,  is  not  necessary.  I  think  that  the  prohibition  to  bring 
together  two  species  in  any  kind  of  work,  as  included  in  the  words,  ''Thou 
shalt  not  plow  with  an  ox  and  an  ass  together  "  (Deut.  xxii.  lo),  is  only  a 
preventive  against  the  intercourse  of  two  species.  For  if  it  were  allowed  to 
join  such  together  in  any  work,  we  might  sometimes  also  cause  their  inter- 
course. That  this  is  the  reason  of  the  commandment  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  it  applies  to  other  animals  besides  ox  and  ass ;  it  is  prohibited  to  plow 
not  only  with  ox  and  ass  together,  but  with  any  two  kinds.  But  Scripture 
mentions  as  an  instance  that  which  is  of  regular  occurrence. 

As  regards  circumcision,  I  think  that  one  of  its  objects  is  to  limit  sexual 
intercourse,  and  to  weaken  the  organ  of  generation  as  far  as  possible,  and 
thus  cause  man  to  be  moderate.  Some  people  believe  that  circumcision  is 
to  remove  a  defect  in  man's  formation  ;  but  every  one  can  easily  reply  : 
How  can  products  of  nature  be  deficient  so  as  to  require  external  completion, 
especially  as  the  use  of  the  fore-skin  to  that  organ  is  evident.  This  command- 
ment has  not  been  enjoined  as  a  complement  to  a  deficient  physical  creation, 
but  as  a  means  for  perfecting  man's  moral  shortcomings.  The  bodily  injury 
caused  to  that  organ  is  exactly  that  which  is  desired  ;  it  does  not  interrupt 
any  vital  function,  nor  does  it  destroy  the  power  of  generation.  Circum- 
cision simply  counteracts  excessive  lust;  for  there  is  no  doubt  that  circumcision 
weakens  the  power  of  sexual  excitement,  and  sometimes  lessens  the  natural  en- 
joyment ;  the  organ  necessarily  becomes  weak  when  it  loses  blood  and  is  de- 
prived of  its  covering  from  the  beginning.  Our  Sages  (Beresh.  Rabba,  c.  80)  say 
distinctly  :  It  is  hard  for  a  woman,  with  whom  an  uncircumcised  had  sexual 
intercourse,  to  separate  from  him.  This  is,  as  I  believe,  the  best  reason  for  the 
commandment  concerning  circumcision.  And  who  was  the  first  to  perform 
this  commandment  ?  Abraham,  our  father !  of  whom  it  is  well  known  how 
he  feared  sin  ;  it  is  described  by  our  Sages  in  reference  to  the  words,  "  Be- 
hold, now  I  know  that  thou  art  a  fair  woman  to  look  upon  "  (Gen.  xii.  1 1). 

There  is,  however,  another  important  object  in  this  commandment.  It 
gives  to  all  members  of  the  same  faith,  i.e.,  to  all  behevers  in  the  Unity  of 
God,  a  common  bodily  sign,  so  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  that  is  a 
stranger,  to  say  that  he  belongs  to  them.  For  sometimes  people  say  so  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  some  advantage,  or  in  order  to  make  some  attack 
upon  the  Jews.  No  one,  however,  should  circumcise  himself  or  his  son  for 
any  other  reason  but  pure  faith ;  for  circumcision  is  not  like  an  incision  on 
the  leg,  or  a  burning  in  the  arm,  but  a  very  difficult  operation.  It  is  also  a 
fact  that  there  is  much  mutual  love  and  assistance  among  people  that  are 
united  by  the  same  sign  when  they  consider  it  as  [the  symbol  of]  a  covenant. 
Circumcision  is  likewise  the  [symbol  of  the]  covenant  which  Abraham  made 
in  connexion  with  the  belief  in  God's  Unity.  So  also  every  one  that  is 
circumcised  enters  the  covenant  of  Abraham  to  believe  in  the  unity  of  God, 
in  accordance  with  the  words  of  the  Law,  "  To  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee  "  (Gen.  xvii.  7).  This  purpose  of  the  circumcision  is  as 
important  as  the  first,  and  perhaps  more  important. 

This  law  can  only  be  kept  and  perpetuated  in  its  perfection,  if  circum- 
cision is  performed  when  the  child  is  very  young,  and  this  for  three  good 
reasons.     First,  if  the  operation  were  postponed  till  the  boy  had  grown  up. 


THE    DIVINE    COMMANDMENTS  370 

he  would  perhaps  not  submit  to  it.     Secondly,  the  young  child  hat  not  much 
pain,  because  the  skin  is  tender,  and  the  imagination  weak  ;    f 
persons  are  in  dread  and  fear  of  tliin),'^  whicli  they  imagine  at  i 
time  before  these  actually  occur.     Thirdly,  when  a  child  is  vcr, 
parents  do  not  think  much  nf  him  ;    because  the  image  of  the  child,  tiut 
leads  the  parents  to  love  him,  has  not  yet  taken  a  firm  root  in  •' 
That  image  becomes  stronger  by  the  continual  sight;    it  gr«iv. 
development  of  the  child,  and  later  on  the  image  begin*  again  to  dccrciic 
and  to  vanish.     The  parents'  love  for  a  new-born  child  is  not  so  great  a«    • 
when  the  child  is  one  year  old  ;   and  when  one  year  old,  it  is  !'•■-  '  ■ 
them  than  when  six  years  old.     The  feeling  and  love  of  the  f- 
child  would  have  led  him  to  neglect  the  law  if  he  were  allowed  to  wail  two 
or  three  years,  whilst  shortly  after  birth  the  im.i      '        ^v  weak  in  t'  ! 

of  the  parent,  especially  of  the  father  who  is  rt.  ;    ...  ic  for  the  ci      . 
of  this  commandment.     The  circumcision  must  take  place  on  the  ci^   ■ 
day  (Lev.  xii.  3),  because  all  living  beings  are  after  birth,  within  the  tint 
seven  days,  very  weak  and  exceedingly  tender,  as  if  tlicy  v —    •  '1  in  the 
womb  of  their  mother  ;   not  until  the  eighth  day  can  they  b-  !  among 

those  that  enjoy  the  light  of  the  world.  That  this  is  also  the  case  with 
beasts  may  be  inferred  from  the  words  of  Scripture  :  "  Seven  days  ihj'^  :t 
be  under  the  dam  "  (Lev.  xxii.  27),  as  if  it  had  no  \'itality  before  ih'-  '••  . 
that  period.  In  the  same  manner  man  is  circumcised  after  the  co: 
of  seven  days.  The  period  has  been  fixed,  and  has  not  been  left  10  every- 
body's judgment. 

The  precepts  of  this  class  include  also  the  lesson  that  we  must  not  injure 
in  any  way  the  organs  of  generation  in  li\'ing  beings  {iiiJ.  xxii.  24).     Tl)e 
lesson  is  based  on  the  principle  of  "  righteous  statutes  and   • 
(Deut.  iv.  8)  ;   we  must  keep  in  everything  the  golden  mean  ;   \>.>   m...  . 
be  excessive  in  love,  but  must  not  suppress  it  entirely  ;    for  the  I  jw  i    ■ 
mands,  "  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply"  (Gen.  i.  22).     The  organ  is  wealr      i 
by  circumcision,    but    not  destroyed    by  the    operation.      The 
faculty  is  left  in  full  force,  but  is  guarded  against  excess.      It  is  pr 
for  an  Israelite  "  that  is  wounded  in  the  stones,  or   hath  his  privy  men.     ■ 
cut  off  "  (Deut.  xxiii.  2),  to  marry  an  Israelitish  woman  ;   because  the  uri^tA 
intercourse  is  of  no  use  and  of  no  purpose  ;   and   that  marriage  wf--  '  •  ■     1 
source  of  ruin  to  her,  and  to  him  who  would  claim  her.     Thii  i»  re: 

In  order  to  create  a  horror  of  illicit  marriages,  a  bastard  was  not  allowrd 
to  marry  an  Israelitish  woman  (ibid.  xxiu.  3) ;  the  adulterer 
adulteress  were  thus  taught  that  by  their  act  they  bring  upon  t:.  .  -  i 
irreparable  injury.  In  every  language  and  in  every  nation  the  iwuc  of 
licentious  conduct  has  a  bad  name  ;  the  Uw  therefore  raises  the  name  of 
the  Israelites  by  keeping  them  free  from  the  admixture  of  bj  *  -  ' 
priests,  who  have  a  higher  sanctity,  are  not  allowed  t<>  marry  ^  •» 

woman  that  is  divorced  from  her  husband,  or  that  i*  profane  (Ur.  ixi  7)  ; 
the  high-priest,  the  noblest  of  the  priests,  must  not  many  even  a  ^^ 
a  woman  that  has  had  sexual  intercourse  of  any  kin  !  ^■''  • '   • "    v 
these  laws  the  reason  is  obvious.     If  bastards  were  , 
member  of    the    congregation  of  the  Lord,  how  much  m-.re    n. 
slaves  and  handmaids  to  be  excluded.     The  reason  of  the  prohibition  ct  .rtrt- 

o 


38o  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

marria(»e  with  other  nations  is  stated  in  the  Law  :  "  And  thou  take  of  their 
daughters  unto  thy  sons,  and  their  daughters  go  a  whoring  after  their  gods, 
and  make  thy  sons  go  a  whoring  after  their  gods  "  (Exod.  xxxiv.  i6). 

Most  of  the  "  statutes  "  (hukkim),  the  reason  of  which  is  unknown  to  us 
serve  as  a  fence  against  idolatry.  That  I  cannot  explain  some  details  of  the 
above  laws  or  show  their  use  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  what  we  hear  from 
others  is  not  so  clear  as  that  which  we  see  with  our  own  eyes.  Thus  my 
knowledge  of  the  Sabean  doctrines,  which  I  derived  from  books,  is  not  as 
complete  as  the  knowledge  of  those  who  have  witnessed  the  public  practice 
of  those  idolatrous  customs,  especially  as  they  have  been  out  of  practice  and 
entirely  extinct  since  two  thousand  years.  If  we  knew  all  the  particulars  of 
the  Sabean  worship,  and  were  informed  of  all  the  details  of  those  doctrines, 
we  would  clearly  see  the  reason  and  wisdom  of  every  detail  in  the  sacrificial 
service,  in  the  laws  concerning  things  that  are  unclean,  and  in  other  laws, 
the  object  of  which  I  am  unable  to  state.  I  have  no  doubt  that  all  these 
laws  served  to  blot  out  wrong  principles  from  man's  heart,  and  to  exter- 
minate the  practices  which  are  useless,  and  merely  a  waste  of  time  in  vain 
and  purposeless  things.  Those  principles  have  turned  the  mind  of  the 
people  away  from  intellectual  research  and  useful  actions.  Our  prophets 
therefore  describe  the  ways  of  the  idolaters  as  follows  :  "  (They  go)  after 
vain  things  which  cannot  profit  nor  deliver  ;  for  they  are  vain  "  (l  Sam. 
xii.  2i)  ;  "  Surely  our  fathers  have  inherited  Ues,  vanity  and  things  wherein 
there  is  no  profit  "  (Jer.  xvi.  19).  Consider  how  great  the  evil  consequences 
of  idolatry  are,  and  say  whether  we  ought  vnih  all  our  power  to  oppose  it  or 
not  !  Most  of  the  precepts  serve,  as  has  been  stated  by  us,  as  a  mere  fence 
against  those  doctrines  [of  idolatry],  and  relieve  man  from  the  great  and 
heavy  burdens,  from  the  pains  and  inflictions  which  formed  part  of  the 
worship  of  idols.  Every  positive  or  negative  precept,  the  reason  of  which 
is  unknown  to  thee,  take  as  a  remedy  against  some  of  those  diseases  with 
which  we  are  unacquainted  at  present,  thank  God.  This  should  be  the 
belief  of  educated  men  who  know  the  true  meaning  of  the  following  divine 
dictum  :  "  I  said  not  unto  the  seed  of  Jacob,  Seek  me  in  vain  "  (Isa.  xlv.  19). 

I  have  now  mentioned  all  the  commandments  of  these  fourteen  classses 
one  by  one,  and  pointed  out  the  reason  of  each  of  them,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  for  which  I  was  unable  to  give  the  reason,  and  of  some  details  of  less 
importance  ;  but  implicitly  we  have  given  the  reason  even  of  these,  and 
every  intelligent  reader  will  easily  find  it. 

The  reasons  of  the  Precepts  are  now  complete. 

CHAPTER  L 

There  are  in  the  Law  portions  which  include  deep  wisdom,  but  have  been 
misunderstood  by  many  persons;  they  require,  therefore,  an  explanation. 
I  mean  the  narratives  contained  in  the  Law  which  many  consider  as  being 
of  no  use  whatever  ;  e.g.,  the  list  of  the  various  families  descended  from 
Noah,  with  their  names  and  their  territories  (Gen.  x.)  ;  the  sons  of  Seir  the 
Horite(z^/^.  xxxvi.  20-30)  ;  the  kings  that  reigned  in  Edom  (ibid.  31,  seq.)  ; 
and  the  like.  There  is  a  saying  of  our  Sages  (B.T.  Sanh.  99/^)  that  the  wicked 
king  Manasse  frequently  held  disgraceful  meetings  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
criticising  such  passages  of  the  Law.     "  He  held  meetings  and  made  bias- 


THE    NARRATIVE    ELEMENT    IN    THE    TORAH    ^St 

phemous  observations  on  Scripture,  sayiiiR,  ||jj  M.>5c»  i„,i..,;.. 

than,  And  the  sister  of  Lotan  was  Timna  "  (Gen.  nxvi.  22)  >'  .. 

ence  to  such  passages,  I  will  first  give  a  general  principle,  and  then  ducoM 

them  seriatim,  as  I  have  done  in  the  exposition  of  the  reaionj    '    ' 

Every  narrative  in  the  Law  serves  a  certain  purpose  in  ..... ,.... 

religious  teaching.  It  either  helps  to  establish  a  principle  of  faith,  or  to 
regulate  our  actions,  and  to  prevent  wrong  and  injustice  among  men ;  and 
I  will  show  this  in  each  case. 

It  is  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Law  that  the  UnircrK  hit 
been  created  ex  nihilo,  and  that  of  the  human  race,  one  individual  being, 
Adam,  was  created.     As  the  time  which  elapsed  from  Adam  to  MrHc*  wat 
not  more  than  about  two  thousand  five  hundred  years,  |>c«>j  Ic  •.-.      '  '  '  jvc 
doubted  the  truth  of  that  statement  if  no  other  information  had  i  rd, 

seeing  that  the  human  race  was  spread  over  all  parts  of  the  earth  in  diHcrcni 
families  and  with  different  languages,  very  unlike  the  one  to  the  other.      In 
order  to  remove  this  doubt  the  Law  gives  the  genealogy  of  the  nations  (Gen. 
v.  and  I.),  and  the  manner  how  they  branched  off  from  a  common  root. 
It  names  those  of  them  who  were  well  known,  and  tells  who  their  fathers 
were,  how  long  and  where  they  lived.     It  describes  also  the  cau--  •'    ■  led 
to  the  dispersion  of  men  over  all  parts  of  the  earth,  and  to  the  f.  of 

their  different  languages,  after  they  had  lived  for  a  long  time  in  one  pbce, 
and  spoken  one  language  {ibid,  xi.),  as  would  be  natural  for   '  of 

one  person.     The  accounts  of  the  flood  {ibid,  vi.-viii.)  and  of  t;..  ...  ..  -  ..on 

of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  {ibid.  lix.),  serve  as  an  illustration  of  the  doctrine 
that  "  Verily  there  is  a  reward  for  the  righteous ;    verily  He  is  a  God  that 
judgeth  in  the  earth  "  (Ps.  Iviii.  12). 

The  narration  of  the  war  among  the  nine  kings  {ibid,  xiv.)  shows  how,  by 
means  of  a  miracle,  Abraham,  with  a  few  undisciplined  men,  defeated  four 
mighty  kings.     It  illustrates  at  the  same  time  how  Abraham  »y  od 

with  his  relative,  who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  same  faith,  a:.  .  ..   ..  he 

exposed  himself  to  the  dangers  of  warfare  in  order  to  save  him.  We  further 
learn  from  this  na/rativc  how  contented  and  satisfied  Abraham  was,  thinking 
little  of  property,  and  very  much  of  good  deeds ;  he  said,  "  I  will  not  take 
from  a  thread  even  to  a  shoe-latchet  "  (Gen.  xiv.  23). 

The  list  of  the  families  of  Scir  and  their  genealogy  is  given  in  the  Ijw 
{ibid,  xxxvi.  20-30),  because  of  one  particular  commandment.     For  God 


'■  "ne 


distinctly  commanded  the  Israelites  concc-rning  .Amalek  to 
(Deut.  XXV.  17-19).     Amalek  was  the  son  of  Kiiphas  and    .  ff 

of  Lotan  {ibid,  xxxvi.  12).     The  other  sons  of  Plsau  were  not  ir  n  ihtt 

commandment.     But  Esau  was  by  marriage  connected  wr'  *» 

is  distinctly  stated  in  Scripture;    and  Seiritcs  were  there:  1; 

he  reigned  over  them  ;  his  seed  was  mixed  with  the  seed  of  Seir.  and  ulti- 
mately all  the  countries  and  families  of  Scir  were  called  after  f  A 
Esau  who  were  the  predominant  family,  and  they  assi;:-  -  '  "  '"  ■  .mljr 
the  name  Amalekites,  because  these  were  the  strongi  y.  \i 
the  genealogy  of  these  families  of  Scir  had  not  been  described  in  lull  they 
would  all  have  been  killed,  contrary  to  the  plain  words  of  the  c  'ment. 
For  this  reason  the  Scirite  families  are  fully  described,  as  if  to  <. . .  :..-  jenplc 
that  live  in  Seir  and  in  the  kingdom  of  Amalek  arc  not  all  Anulclitc*  ;  ihcy 


382  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

are  the  descendants  of  some  other  man,  and  are  called  Amalekites  because  the 
mother  of  Amalek  was  of  their  tribe.  The  justice  of  God  thus  prevented  the 
destruction  of  an  [innocent]  people  that  lived  in  the  midst  of  another  people 
[doomed  to  extirpation]  ;  for  the  decree  was  only  pronounced  against  the  seed 
of  Amalek.     The  reason  of  this  decree  has  already  been  stated  by  us  (p.  205). 

The  kings  that  have  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom  are  enumerated  (Gen 
xixvi,  31,  seq.)  on  account  of  the  law,  "  Thou  mayst  not  set  a  stranger  over 
thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother"  (Deut.  xvii.  15).  For  of  these  kings  none 
was  an  Edomite ;  wherefore  each  king  is  described  by  his  native  land  ;  one 
king  from  this  place,  another  king  from  that  place.  Now  I  think  that  it  was 
then  well  known  how  these  kings  that  reigned  in  Edom  conducted  them- 
selves, what  they  did,  and  how  they  humiliated  and  oppressed  the  sons  of 
Esau.  Thus  God  reminded  the  Israelites  of  the  fate  of  the  Edomites,  as  if 
saying  unto  them,  Look  unto  your  brothers,  the  sons  of  Esau,  whose  kings 
were  so  and  so,  and  whose  deeds  are  well  known.  [Learn  therefrom]  that 
no  nation  ever  chose  a  foreigner  as  king  without  inflicting  thereby  some  great 
or  small  injury  upon  the  country.  In  short,  what  I  remarked  in  reference 
to  our  ignorance  of  the  Sabean  worship,  applies  also  to  the  history  of  those 
days.  If  the  religious  rules  of  the  Sabeans  and  the  events  of  those  days  were 
known  to  us,  we  should  be  able  to  see  plainly  the  reason  for  most  of  the  things 
mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch. 

It  is  also  necessary  to  note  the  following  observations.  The  view  we  take 
of  things  described  by  others  is  different  from  the  view  we  take  of  things  seen 
by  us  as  eye-witnesses.  For  that  which  we  see  contains  many  details  which 
are  essential,  and  must  be  fully  described.  The  reader  of  the  description 
believes  that  it  contains  superfluous  matter,  or  useless  repetition,  but  if  he 
had  wdtnessed  the  event  of  which  he  reads,  he  would  see  the  necessity  of 
every  part  of  the  description.  When  we  therefore  notice  narratives  in  the 
Torah,  which  are  in  no  connexion  with  any  of  the  commandments,  we  are 
inclined  to  think  that  they  are  entirely  superfluous,  or  too  lengthy,  or  con- 
tain repetitions ;  but  this  is  only  because  we  do  not  see  the  particular  inci- 
dents which  make  those  narratives  noteworthy.  Of  this  kind  is  the  enumer- 
ation of  the  stations  [of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness]  (Num.  xxxiii.).  At 
first  sight  it  appears  to  be  entirely  useless ;  but  in  order  to  obviate  such  a 
notion  Scripture  says,  "  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to  their 
journeys  by  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  "  (ibid.  ver.  2).  It  was  indeed 
most  necessary  that  these  should  be  written.  For  miracles  are  only  con- 
vincing to  those  who  witnessed  them  ;  whilst  coming  generations,  who  know 
them  only  from  the  account  given  by  others,  may  consider  them  as  untrue. 
But  miracles  cannot  continue  and  last  for  all  generations ;  it  is  even  incon- 
ceivable [that  they  should  be  permanent].  Now  the  greatest  of  the  miracles 
described  in  the  Law  is  the  stay  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  for  forty 
years,  vnih  a  daily  supply  of  manna.  This  wilderness,  as  described  in  Scrip- 
ture, consisted  of  places  "  wherein  were  fiery  serpents  and  scorpions,  and 
drought,  where  there  was  no  water  "  (Deut.  viii.  15)  ;  places  very  remote 
from  cultivated  land,  and  naturally  not  adapted  for  the  habitation  of  man. 

It  is  no  place  of  seed,  or  of  figs,  or  of  vines,  or  of  pomegranates,  neither  is 
there  any  water  to  drink  "  (Num.  xx.  5)  ;  "A  land  that  no  man  passed 
through,  and  where  no  man  dwelt  "  (Jer.  ii.  6).     [In  reference  to  the  stay  of 


THE    TRUE    WORSHIP   OF   GOD  383 

the  Israelites  in  tlic  wiklcrncss],  Scripture  rdatci,  "  Yc  have  not  r 

neither  have  ye  drunk  wine  or  strong  drink"  (Dcut.  xix.   $) _< 

miracles  were  wonderful,  public,  and  witnessed  by  the  people.  But  GoJ 
knew  that  in  future  people  might  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  account  of 
these  miracles,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  doubt  the  accuracy  of  other 
narratives ;  they  might  think  that  the  Israelites  stayed  in  the  wilJcrncu  in 
a  place  not  far  from  inhabited  land,  where  it  was  possible  for  man  to  li»e  [in 
the  ordinary  way]  ;  that  it  was  like  those  deserts  in  which  Arabs  live  at  pre- 
sent ;  or  that  they  dwelt  in  such  places  in  which  ihcy  could  plow,  »ow,  and 
reap,  or  live  on  some  vegetable  that  was  growing  there  ;  or  that  manna  came 
always  down  in  those  places  as  an  ordinary  natural  product ;  or  thai  there 
were  wells  of  water  in  those  places.  In  order  to  remove  all  thcv  '  ' 
and  to  firmly  establisli  the  accuracy  of  the  account  of  these  miracle  .  , 
ture  enumerates  all  the  stations,  so  that  coming  generations  miy  »ec  them, 
and  learn  the  greatness  of  the  miracle  which  enabled  human  being*  to  live 
in  those  places  forty  years. 

For  this  very  reason  Joshua  cursed  him  who  would  ever  build  up  Jericho 
(Josh.  vi.  26)  ;  the  effect  of  the  miracle  was  to  remain  for  ever,  lo  that  any 
one  who  would  see  the  wall  sunk  in  the  ground  would  understand  that  it  was 
not  in  the  condition  of  a  building  pulled  down  by  human  hands,  but  »unk 
through  a  miracle.  In  a  similar  manner  the  words,  "  At  the  commandment 
of  the  Lord  the  children  of  Israel  journeyed,  and  at  the  comnxandment  of 

the  Lord  they  pitched"  (Num.  ix.  18),  would  suffice  as  a  simple  it.; r 

of  facts ;  and  the  reader  might  at  first  sight  consider  as  unnccosary  u  . 

all  the  details  which  follow,  viz.,  "  And  when  the  cloud  urried  long .  .  . 

And  so  it  was  when  the  cloud  was  a  few  days.  ...  Or  whether  it  were  two 

days,"  etc.  (ibid.  ix.  19-22).     But  I  will  show  you  the  reason  why  all  thc«c 

details  are  added.     For  they  serve  to  confirm  the  account,  and  to  contra.:n.t 

the  opinion  of  the  nations,  both  of  ancient  and  modern  limes,  that  the  Iirael- 

ites  lost  their  way,  and  did  not  know   where  to  gt> ;   that   "  tl. 

tangled  in  the  land  "  (Exod.  xiv.  3)  ;  wherefore  the  .\rab$  unto  :  ■       '. 

that  desert  Al-tih,  "  the  desert  of  going  astray,"  imagining  that  the  ItracUtcs 

erred  about,  and  did  not  know  the  way.     Scripture,  therefore,  dca-  1 

and  emphatically  declares  that  it  was  by  God's  command  that  the  j . 

ings  were  irregular,  that  the  Israelites  returned  lo  the  tame  place*    KTcral 

times,  and  that  the  duration  of  the  stay  was  different  in  each  nation  ;  wKilit 

the  stay  in  one  place  contmued  for  eighteen  years,  \n  another  y 

one  day,  and  in  another  one  night.     There  was  no  going  ait:..  .   -^: 

journey  was  regulated  by  "  the  rising  of  the  pillar  of  cloud  "  (Num.  ix.  17). 

Therefore  all  these  details  arc  given.     Scripture  clearly  lUtes  that  ihc  •.s - 

was  near,  known,  and  in  good  condition;    I  i 

whither  they  came  intentionally,  according  to  ; 

shall  serve  God  upon  this  mountain  "  (Exod.  ii.  \l\  to  Kadcih-barnca.  the 

beginning  of   inhabited   land,  as  Scripture  says,  *'  Behold,  we  arr 

Kadesh,  a  city  in  the  uttermost  of  thy  b<irder  "  (Num.  xx.  16).      i    - 

was  a  journey  of  eleven  days;    comp.  "  Eleven  days'  journey  from  H 

by  the  way  of  mount  Seir,  unto  Kadesh-barnea  "  (Deut.  i.  3).     In  lucii  « 

journey  it  is  impossible  to  err  about  for  forty  yean  ;  but  Scripture  »uia  the 

cause  of  the  delay. 


384  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

In  like  manner  there  is  a  good  reason  for  every  passage  the  object  of  which 
we  cannot  see.  We  must  always  apply  the  words  of  our  Sages :  "  It  is  not  a 
vain  thing  for  you  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  47),  and  if  it  seems  vain,  it  seems  your  fault. 

CHAPTER  LI 

The  present  chapter  does  not  contain  any  additional  matter  that  has  not 
been  treated  in  the  [previous]  chapters  of  this  treatise.  It  is  a  kind  of  con- 
clusion, and  at  the  same  time  it  will  explain  in  what  manner  those  worship 
God  who  have  obtained  a  true  knowledge  concerning  God  ;  it  will  direct 
them  how  to  come  to  that  worship,  which  is  the  liighest  aim  man  can  attain, 
and  show  how  God  protects  them  in  this  world  till  they  are  removed  to 
eternal  life. 

I  will  begin  the  subject  of  this  chapter  with  a  simile.  A  king  is  in  his 
palace,  and  all  his  subjects  are  partly  in  the  country,  and  partly  abroad.  Of 
the  former,  some  have  their  backs  turned  towards  the  king's  palace,  and  their 
faces  in  another  direction ;  and  some  are  desirous  and  zealous  to  go  to  the 
palace,  seeking  "  to  inquire  in  his  temple,"  and  to  minister  before  him,  but 
have  not  yet  seen  even  the  face  of  the  wall  of  the  house.  Of  those  that 
desire  to  go  to  the  palace,  some  reach  it,  and  go  round  about  in  search  of  the 
entrance  gate ;  others  have  passed  through  the  gate,  and  walk  about  in  the 
ante-chamber ;  and  others  have  succeeded  in  entering  into  the  inner  part 
of  the  palace,  and  being  in  the  same  room  vnth.  the  king  in  the  royal  palace. 
But  even  the  latter  do  not  immediately  on  entering  the  palace  see  the  king, 
or  speak  to  him ;  for,  after  having  entered  the  inner  part  of  the  palace, 
another  effort  is  required  before  they  can  stand  before  the  king — at  a  dis- 
tance, or  close  by — hear  his  words,  or  speak  to  him.  I  will  now  explain  the 
simile  which  I  have  made.  The  people  who  are  abroad  are  all  those  that 
have  no  rehgion,  neither  one  based  on  speculation  nor  one  received  by  tra- 
dition. Such  are  the  extreme  Turks  that  wander  about  in  the  north,  the 
Kushites  who  live  in  the  south,  and  those  in  our  country  who  are  like  these. 
I  consider  these  as  irrational  beings,  and  not  as  human  beings ;  they  are  below 
mankind,  but  above  monkeys,  since  they  have  the  form  and  shape  of  man, 
and  a  mental  faculty  above  that  of  the  monkey. 

Those  who  are  in  the  country,  but  have  their  backs  turned  towards  the 
king's  palace,  are  those  who  possess  religion,  belief,  and  thought,  but  happen 
to  hold  false  doctrines,  which  they  either  adopted  in  consequence  of  great 
mistakes  made  in  their  own  speculations,  or  received  from  others  who  misled 
them.  Because  of  these  doctrines  they  recede  more  and  more  from  the 
royal  palace  the  more  they  seem  to  proceed.  These  are  worse  than  the  first 
class,  and  under  certain  circumstances  it  may  become  necessary  to  slay  them, 
and  to  extirpate  their  doctrines,  in  order  that  others  should  not  be  misled. 

Those  who  desire  to  arrive  at  the  palace,  and  to  enter  it,  but  have  never  yet 
seen  it,  are  the  mass  of  rehgious  people ;  the  multitude  that  observe  the 
divine  commandments,  but  are  ignorant.  Those  who  arrive  at  the  palace, 
but  go  round  about  it,  are  those  who  devote  themselves  exclusively  to  the 
study  of  the  practical  law ;  they  beUeve  traditionally  in  true  principles  of 
faith,  and  learn  the  practical  worship  of  God,  but  are  not  trained  in  philo- 
sophical treatment  of  the  principles  of  the  Law,  and  do  not  endeavour  to 


HOW    TJIF    PFRFFrT    WORSHIP   COD  385 

establish  the  truth  of  their  faith  by  proof.     Those  who  undertake  to  inretti- 
gate  the  principles  of  rehg.on,  have  come  into  the  ante-chamber  ;  and  th«c 
IS  no  doubt  that  these  can  also  be  divided  into  diflfc-rcnt         '         But  ' 
who  have  succeeded  in  finding  a  proof  for  everything;  •  •;  be  •  - 

who  have  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  so  far  as  a  true  knowledge  can  be 
and  are  near  the  truth,  wherever  an  approach  to  the  truth  i,  po«ibic  thev 
have  reached  the  goal,  and  are  in  the  palace  in  which  the  kin:-  '■ 

My  son,  so  long  as  you  are  engaged  in  studying  the  Math. :  Science* 

and  Logic,  you  belong  to  those  who  go  round  about  the  palace  in  search  of 
the  gate      Thus  our  Sages  figuratively  use  the  phrase  :    "  Ben-zoma  i.  ,tiU 
outside.       When  you  understand  Physics,  vou  have  entered  the  hall  •    and 
when,  after  completing  the  study  of  Natural  Philosophy,  you  master  .Mcta- 
physics,  you  have  entered  the  innermost  court,  and  are  with  the  king  in  the 
same  palace.     You  have  attained  the  degree  of  the  wise  men.  who  include 
men  of  different  grades  of  perfection.     There  arc  some  who  direct  all  their 
mind  toward  the  attainment  of  perfection  in  .Metaphysics,  devote  them- 
selves entirely  to  God,  exclude  from  their  thought  every  other  thing,  and 
employ  all  their  intellectual  faculties  in  the  study  of  the  Universe,  in  order 
to  derive  therefrom  a  proof  for  the  existence  of  God,  and  to  learn  in  every 
possible  way  how  God  rules  all  things  ;  they  form  the  class  of  those  who  hare 
entered  the  palace,  namely,  the  class  of  prophets.     One  of  these  has  attained 
so  niuch  knowledge,  and  has  concentrated  his  thoughts  to  such  an  extent  in 
the  idea  of  God,  that  it  could  be  said  of  him,  "  And  he  was  with  the  Lord 
forty  days,"  etc.  (Exod.  xxxiv.  28)  ;   during  that  holy  communion  he  could 
ask  Him,  answer  Him,  speak  to  Him,  and  be  addressed  by  Him.  r- 
beatitude  in  that  which  he  had  obtained  to  such  a  degree  that  "  he  did  ; 
eat  bread  nor  drink  water  "  (ihid.) ;   his  intellectual  energy  was  $0  predomi- 
nant that  all  coarser  functions  of  the  body,  especially  those  connected  with 
the  sense  of  touch,  were  in  abeyance.     Some  prophets  are  only  able  to  see, 
and  of  these  some  approach  near  and  see,  whilst  others  see  from  a  distance  : 
comp.  "  The  Lord  hath  appeared  from  far  unto  me  "  (Jcr.  xxxi.  3).     We 
have  already  spoken  of  the  various  degrees  of  prophets ;    we  will  therefore 
return  to  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  and  exhort  those  who  have  attained  a 
knowledge  of  God,  to  concentrate  all  their  thoughts  in  God.     This  is  the 
worship  peculiar  to  those  who  have  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  highett 
truths ;   and  the  more  they  reflect  on  Him,  and  think  of  Him.  the  more  are 
they  engaged  in  His  worship.     Those,  however,  who  think  of  God,  and  fre- 
quently mention  His  name,  without  any  correct  notion  of  Him,  but  merely 
following  some  imagination,  or  some  theory  received  from  another  person, 
are,  in  my  opinion,  like  those   who  remain  outside  the  palace  and  distant 
from  it.     They  do  not  mention  the  name  of  God  in  truth,  nor  do  they 
reflect  on  it.     That  which  they  imagine  and  mention  doe*  not  correspond 
to  any  being  in  existence  ;  it  is  a  thing  invented  by  their  ^  .  ai  has 

been  shown  by  us  in  our  discussion  on  the  Divine  Attribut      ^  ap.  I.). 

The  true  worship  of  God  is  only  possible  when  correct  notions  of  Him  hare 
previously  been  conceived.  When  you  have  arrived  by  way  of  intellectual 
research  at  a  knowledge  of  God  and  His  works,  then  commence  to  devote 
yourselves  to  Him,  try  to  approach  Him  and  strengthen  the  intellect,  which 
is  the  link  that  joins  you  to  Him.     Thus  Scripture  sap,  "  Unto  thee  it  was 


385  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

showed,  that  thou  mightest  know  that  the  Lord  He  is  God  "  (Deut.  iv,  35)  ; 
"  Know  therefore  this  day,  and  consider  it  in  thine  heart,  that  the  Lord  He 
is  God  "  {ibid.  36)  ;  "  Know  ye  that  the  Lord  is  God  "  (Ps.  c.  3).  Thus 
the  Law  distinctly  states  that  the  highest  kind  of  worship  to  which  we  refer 
in  this  chapter,  is  only  possible  after  the  acquisition  of  the  knowledge  of  God. 
For  it  is  said,  "  To  love  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to  serve  Him  with  all  your 
heart  and  with  all  your  soul  "  (Deut.  xi.  13),  and,  as  we  have  shown  several 
times,  man's  love  of  God  is  identical  with  His  knowledge  of  Him.  The 
Divine  service  enjoined  in  these  words  must,  accordingly,  be  preceded  by 
the  love  of  God.  Our  Sages  have  pointed  out  to  us  that  it  is  a  service  in  the 
heart,  which  explanation  I  understand  to  mean  this  :  man  concentrates  all 
his  thoughts  on  the  First  Intellect,  and  is  absorbed  in  these  thoughts  as  much 
as  possible.  David  therefore  commands  his  son  Solomon  these  two  things, 
and  exhorts  him  earnestly  to  do  them  :  to  acquire  a  true  knowledge  of  God, 
and  to  be  earnest  in  His  service  after  that  knowledge  has  been  acquired. 
For  he  says,  "  And  thou,  Solomon  my  son,  know  thou  the  God  of  thy  father, 
and  serve  him  with  a  perfect  heart  ...  if  thou  seek  him,  he  will  be  found 
of  thee  ;  but  if  thou  forsake  him,  he  will  cast  thee  off  for  ever  "  (i  Chron. 
xxviii.  9).  The  exhortation  refers  to  the  intellectual  conceptions,  not  to 
the  imaginations ;  for  the  latter  are  not  called  "  knowledge,"  but  "  that 
which  Cometh  into  your  mind  "  (Ezek.  xx.  32).  It  has  thus  been  shown  that 
it  must  be  man's  aim,  after  having  acquired  the  knowledge  of  God,  to  de- 
liver himself  up  to  Him,  and  to  have  his  heart  constantly  fiUed  with  longing 
after  Him.  He  accomplishes  this  generally  by  seclusion  and  retirement. 
Every  pious  man  should  therefore  seek  retirement  and  seclusion,  and  should 
only  in  case  of  necessity  associate  wath  others. 

Note. — I  have  shown  you  that  the  intellect  which  emanates  from  God 
unto  us  is  the  link  that  joins  us  to  God.  You  have  it  in  your  power  to 
strengthen  that  bond,  if  you  choose  to  do  so,  or  to  weaken  it  gradually  till 
it  breaks,  if  you  prefer  this.  It  will  only  become  strong  when  you  employ 
it  in  the  love  of  God,  and  seek  that  love  ;  it  will  be  weakened  when  you  direct 
your  thoughts  to  other  things.  You  must  know  that  even  if  you  were  the 
wisest  man  in  respect  to  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  you  break  the  bond 
between  you  and  God  whenever  you  turn  entirely  your  thoughts  to  the 
necessary  food  or  any  necessary  business ;  you  are  then  not  with  God,  and 
He  is  not  with  you  ;  for  that  relation  between  you  and  Him  is  actually 
interrupted  in  those  moments.  The  pious  were  therefore  particular  to 
restrict  the  time  in  which  they  could  not  meditate  upon  the  name  of  God, 
and  cautioned  others  about  it,  saying,  "  Let  not  your  minds  be  vacant  from 
reflections  upon  God."  In  the  same  sense  did  David  say,  "  I  have  set  the 
Lord  always  before  me  ;  because  he  is  at  my  right  hand,  I  shall  not  be 
moved  "  (Ps.  xvi.  8)  ;  i.e.,  I  do  not  turn  my  thoughts  away  from  God  ;  He 
is  like  my  right  hand,  which  I  do  not  forget  even  for  a  moment  on  account 
of  the  ease  of  its  motions,  and  therefore  I  shall  not  be  moved,  I  shall  not  fall. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  all  such  religious  acts  as  reading  the  Law, 
praying,  and  the  performance  of  other  precepts,  serve  exclusively  as  the 
means  of  causing  us  to  occupy  and  fill  our  mind  with  the  precepts  of  God, 
and  free  it  from  worldly  business ;  for  we  are  thus,  as  it  were,  in  communi- 
cation with  God,  and  undisturbed  by  any  other  thing.       If  we,  however. 


now  Till-:  ri-Rrrrr  ivoksuw  con         j.^ 

pray  with  tlic  motion  of, our  hps,  and  Dur  lace  toward  the  wjJI,  but  it  the 

same  tunc  think  of  our  business  ;   if  wc  read  the  Law  with  <.ur  •   -     •  •  -hi 

our  heart  is  occupied  with  the  building  of  our  houjc,  and  we  .  .  uf 

what  we  arc  reading;  if  wc  perform  the  commandment*  only  with  our 
limbs,  we  are  like  those  who  are  engaged  in  digging  in  the  '        ' 

wood  in  the  forest,  without  reflecting  on  the  nature  of  thtr .         ,       .  . 

they  are  commanded,  or  what  is  their  object.  Wc  must  not  imagine  ttut 
[in  this  way]  we  attain  the  highest  perfection  ;  on  the  contrary,  wc  arc  then 
like  those  in  reference  to  whom  Scripture  says,  "  Thou  art  near  in  ihcir 
mouth,  and  far  from  their  reins  "  (Jer.  xii.  2). 

I  will  now  commence  to  show  you  the  way  how  to  educate  and  train  your- 
selves in  order  to  attain  that  great  perfection. 

The  first  thing  you  must  do  is  this :  Turn  your  thought*  away  from  every- 
thing while  you  read  Shema'  or  during  the  TcfiUah,  and  do  not  content  your- 
self with  being  devout  when  you  read  the  first  verse  of  Shema,  or  the  fini 
paragraph  of  the  prayer.     When  you  have  successfully     -     •      '   'hit  for 

many  years,  try  in  reading  the  Law  or  listening  u>  it,  to  i r  heart 

and  all  your  thought  occupied  with  understanding  what  you  read  or  hc*r. 
After  some  time  when  you  have  mastered  this,  accustf)m  ynur»clf  to  have 
your  mind  free  from  all  other  thoughts  when  you  read  any  portion  of  the 
other  books  of  the  prophets,  or  when  you  say  any  blessing  ;  and  to  have  your 
attention  directed  exclusively  to  the  perception  and  the  understanding  of 
what  you  utter.     When  you  have  succeeded  in  properly  pcrfor-  ' '-ic 

acts  of  divine  service,  and  you  have  your  thought,  during  their  pc:  ;  ,ic, 
entirely  abstracted  from  worldly  affairs,  take  then  care  that  your  thought 
be  not  disturbed  by  thinking  of  your  wants  or  of  superfluous  thing*.  In  ihori, 
think  of  worldly  matters  when  you  eat,  drink,  bathe,  talk  with  your  wife  and 
little  children^  or  when  you  converse  with  other  people.  These  times,  which 
are  frequent  and  long,  I  think,  must  suffice  to  you  for  reflecting  on  every- 
thing that  is  necessary  as  regards  business,  household,  and  health.  But  when 
you  are  engaged  in  the  performance  of  religious  duties,  have  your  mind 
exclusively  directed  to  what  you  are  doing. 

When  you  are  alone  by  yourself,  when  you  arc  awake  on  your  couch,  be 
careful  to  meditate  in  such  precious  moments  on  nothing  but  the  intellectual 
worship  of  God,  viz.,  to  approach  liim  and  to  minister  before  Him  in  the 
true  manner  which  I  have  described  to  you — not  in  hollow  cmotioru.  Thii 
I  consider  as  the  highest  perfection  wise  men  can  attain  bv  the  ibove 
training. 

When  we  have  acquired  a  true  knowledge  of  God,  and    rejoice    in  fK»t 
knowledge  in  such  a  manner,  that  whilst  speaking  with  other*,  or  lit 
to  our  bodily  wants,  our  mind  is  all  that  time  with  God  ;     •'  ■'-nn 

our  heart  constantly  near  God,  even  whilst  our  body  is  in  t  '  ir.rn  ; 

when  we  are  in  that  state  which  the  Song  on  the  relation  between  God  and 
man  poetically  describes  in  the  following  words  :  "  I  sleep,  but  my  heart 
waketh  ;  it  is  the  voice  of  my  beloved  that  kn<Kkcth  "  (Song  r.  i) :— then 
we  have  attained  not  only  the  height  of  ordinar>-  prophets,  but  of  Mtttei, 
our  Teacher,  of  whom  Scripture  relates :  "  And  MoJc«  alone  ihall  coroc  near 
before  the  Lord  "  {ibid,  xxxiv.  28)  ;  "  But  as  for  thee,  stand  '  '  by 
me  "  (Deut.  v.  28).     The  meaning  of  these  verses  has  been  ci,  .^.-  ^. 


388  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

The  Patriarchs  likewise  attained  this  degree  of  perfection  ;     they  ap- 
proached God  in  such  a  manner  that  with  them  the  name  of  God  became 
known  in  the  world.     Thus  we  read  in  Scripture  :   "  The  God  of  Abraham, 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob.  .  .  .  This  is  My  name  for  ever  " 
(Exod.  iii.  15).     Their  mind  was  so  identified  with  the  knowledge  of  God, 
that  He  made  a  lasting  covenant  with  each  of  them  :  "  Then  will  I  remember 
my  covenant  with  Jacob,"  etc.  (Lev.  xxvi.  42).     For  it  is  known  from  state- 
ments made  in  Scripture  that  these  four,  viz.,  the  Patriarchs  and  Moses,  had 
their  minds  exclusively  filled  with  the  name  of  God,  that  is,  with  His  know- 
ledge and  love ;    and  that  in  the  same  measure  was  Divine  Providence 
attached  to  them  and  their  descendants.     When  we  therefore  find  them 
also,  engaged  in  ruling  others,  in  increasing  their  property,  and  endeavouring 
to  obtain  possession  of  wealth  and  honour,  we  see  in  this  fact  a  proof  that 
when  they  were  occupied  in  these  things,  only  their  bodily  limbs  were  at 
work,  whilst  their  heart  and  mind  never  moved  away  from  the  name  of  God. 
I  think  these  four  reached  that  high  degree  of  perfection  in  their  relation  to 
God,  and  enjoyed  the  continual  presence  of  Divine  Providence,  even  in  their 
endeavours  to  increase  their  property,  feeding  the  flock,  toiling  in  the  field, 
or  managing  the  house,  only  because  in  all  these  things  their  end  and  aim 
was  to  approach  God  as  much  as  possible.     It  was  the  chief  aim  of  their 
whole  life  to  create  a  people  that  should  know  and  worship  God.     Comp. 
"  For  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his  household  after 
him  "  (Gen.  xviii.  19).     The  object  of  all  their  labours  was  to  publish  the 
Unity  of  God  in  the  world,  and  to  induce  people  to  love  Him ;   and  it  was 
on  this  account  that  they  succeeded  in  reaching  that  high  degree  ;  for  even 
those  [worldly]  affairs  were  for  them  a  perfect  worship  of  God.     But  a  person 
like  myself  must  not  imagine  that  he  is  able  to  lead  men  up  to  this  degree  of 
perfection      It  is  only  the  next  degree  to  it  that  can  be  attained  by  means 
of  the  above-mentioned  training.     And  let  us  pray  to  God  and  beseech  Him 
that  He  clear  and  remove  from  our  way  everything  that  forms  an  obstruction 
and  a  partition  between  us  and  Him,  although  most  of  these  obstacles  are 
our  own  creation,  as  has  several  times  been  shown  in  this  treatise.     Comp. 
"  Your  iniquities  have  separated  between  you  and  your  God  "  (Isa.  lix.  2). 
An  excellent  idea  presents  itself  here  to  me,  which  may  serve  to  remove 
many  doubts,  and  may  help  to  solve  many  difficult  problems  in  metaphysics. 
We  have  already  stated  in  the  chapters  which  treat  of  Divine  Providence, 
that  Providence  watches  over  every  rational  being  according  to  the  amount 
of  intellect  which  that  being  possesses.     Those  who  are  perfect  in  their  per- 
ception of  God,  whose  mind  is  never  separated  from  Him,  enjoy  always  the 
influence  of  Providence.     But  those  who,  perfect  in  their  knowledge  of  God, 
turn  their  mind  sometimes  away  from  God,  enjoy  the  presence  of  Divine 
Providence  only  when  they  meditate  on  God  ;    when  their  thoughts  are 
engaged    in    other    matters,  divine    Providence  departs   from  them.     The 
absence  of  Providence  in  this  case  is  not  like  its  absence  in  the  case  of  those 
who  do  not  reflect  on  God  at  all ;  it  is  in  this  case  less  intense,  because  when  a 
person  perfect  in  his  knowledge  [of  God]  is  busy  wdth  worldly  matters,  he 
has  not  knowledge  in  actuality,  but  only  knowledge  in  potentiality  [though 
ready  to  become  actual].     This  person  is  then  like  a  trained  scribe  when  he 
is  not  writing.     Those  who  have  no  knowledge  of  God  are  like  those  who  are 


HOW    THE    VERriiCT    WORSHIP    COL  38^ 

in  constant  darkness  and  have  never  seen  liRht.     Wc  Juvc  cinlaincd  in  thi» 
sense  the  words:    "The  wicked  shall  be  silent  in  darkna,  "  (,  Sam    ii    g) 
whilst  those  who  possess  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  have  their  ihoughu 
entirely  directed  to  that  knowledge,  arc,  as  it  were,  .'  '     '       • 

shine;  and  those  who  have  tlie  knowledge,  but  are  at  1 1  ,f 

themes,  have  then  as  it  were  a  cloudy  day  :   the  sun  doa  not  ihinc  for  ihcro 
on  account  of  the  cloud  that  intervenes  between  them  and  God. 

Hence  it  appears  to  me  that  it  is  only  in  time?  of  such  neglect  that  loroe  of 
the  ordinary  evils  befall  a  prophet  or  a  perfect  and  pious  man  ;    and  the 
intensity  of  the  evil  is  proportional  to  the  duration  of  those  momcnti,  or  to 
the  character  of  the  things  that  thus  occupy  their  mind.     Such  being  the 
case,  the  great  difficulty  is  removed  that  led  philosophers  to  ajscrt  that 
Providence  does  not  extend  to  every  individual,  and  that  man  u  like  any  other 
living  being  in  this  respect,  viz.,  the  argument  based  on  the  fact  that  good 
and  pious  men  are  afflicted  with  great  evils.     We  have  thus  ct    '  '      '  ••  :, 
difficult  question  even  in  accordance  with  the  philosophers'  ov. 
Divine  Providence  is  constantly  watching  over  those  who  have  obtained  that 
blessing  which  is  prepared  for  those  who  endeavour  to  obtain  it.     If  man 
frees  his  thoughts  from  worldly  matters,  obtains  a  knowledge  of  God  in  the 
right  way,  and  rejoices  in  that  knowledge,  it  is  impossible  that  any  kind  of 
evil  should  befall  him  while  he  is  with  God,  and  God  with  him.     When  he 
does  not  meditate  on  God,  when  he  is  separated  from  God,  then  God  is  alw. 
separated  from  him  ;    then  he  is  exposed  to  any  evil  that  might  befall  him  ; 
for  it  is  only  that  intellectual  link  with  God  that  secures  the  presence  of 
Providence  and  protection  from  evil  accidents.     Hence  it  may  cKcur  that 
the  perfect  man  is  at  times  not  happy,  whilst  no  evil  befalls  those  wh'^  — 
imperfect ;    in  these  cases  what  happens  to  them  is  due  to  chance.      1 
principle  I  find  also  expressed  in  the  Law.     Comp.  "  And  I  will  hide  my  face 
from  them,  and  they  shall  be  devoured,  and  many  evils  and  troubles  ihall 
befall  them  ;  so  that  they  will  say  in  that  day.  Are  not  these  evils  come  upon 
us,  because  our  God  is  not  among  us  ?  "  (Deut.  xxxi.  17).    It  i«  dear  that  wc 
ourselves  are  the  cause  of  this  hiding  of  the  face,  and  that  the  screen  that 
separates  us  from  God  is  of  our  own  creation.     This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
words :   "  And  I  will  surely  hide  my  face  in  that  day,  for  all  the  cvib  which 
they  shall  have  wTought  "  {ibid.  ver.  18).     There  is  undoubtedly  no  difference 
in  this  regard  between  one  single  person  and  a  whole  community.     It  u  now 
clearly  established  that  the  cause  of  our  being  exposed  to  chance,  and  aban- 
doned to  destruction  like  cattle,  is  to  be  found  in  our  separation  from  (Jo*.!. 
Those  who  have  their  God  dwelling  in  their  hearts,  arc  not  touched  by  any 
evil  whatever.     For  God  says :    "  Fear  thou  not,  for  I  am  with  thee ;    be 
not  dismayed,  for  I  am  thy  God  "  (Isa.  xli.   10).     "  When  thou  pawost 
through  the  waters,  I  will  be  with  thee  ;  and  through  the  riven,  they  thall 
not  overflow  thee  "  {ibid,  xliii.  2).     For  if  wc  prepare  ourselves,  and  attain 
the  influence  of  the  Divine  Intellect,  Providence  is  joined  to  u".    -  '    '       - 
guarded  against  all  evils.     Comp.  "  The  I^ord  is  on  my  side  ;  I  v. 
what  can  man  do  unto  me  1  "  (Ps.  crviii.  6).  "Acquaint  now  th)-*elf  with 
him,  and  be  at  peace  "  (Job  xxii.  21)  ;  i.e.,  turn  unto  Him,  and  you  will  be 
safe  from  all  evil. 

Consider  the  Psalm  on  mishaps,  and  sec  how  the  author  describes  that 


390  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

great  Providence,  the  protection  and  defence  from  all  mishaps  that  concern 
the  body,  both  from  those  that  are  common  to  all  people,  and  those  that 
concern  only  one  certain  individual ;  from  those  that  are  due  to  the  laws  of 
Nature,  and  those  that  are  caused  by  our  feUow-men.  The  Psalmist  says  : 
"  Surely  he  wiU  deliver  thee  from  the  snare  of  the  fowler,  and  from  the 
noisome  pestilence.  He  shall  cover  thee  with  his  feathers,  and  under  his 
wings  shalt  thou  trust :  His  truth  shall  be  thy  shield  and  buckler.  Thou 
shalt  not  be  afraid  for  the  terror  by  night ;  nor  for  the  arrow  that  flieth  by 
day  "  (Ps.  xci.  3-5).  The  author  then  relates  how  God  protects  us  from  the 
troubles  caused  by  men,  saying,  If  you  happen  to  meet  on  your  way  wath  an 
army  fighting  with  drawn  swords,  kUling  thousands  at  your  left  hand  and 
mvriads  at  your  right  hand,  you  vnU  not  suffer  any  harm  ;  you  will  behold 
and  see  how  God  judges  and  punishes  the  wicked  that  are  being  slain,  whilst 
you  remain  unhurt.  "  A  thousand  shall  fall  at  thy  side,  and  ten  thousand  at 
thy  right  hand  ;  but  it  shall  not  come  nigh  thee.  Only  with  thine  eyes  shalt 
thou  behold  and  see  the  reward  of  the  wicked  "  (ibid.  vers.  7,  8).  The 
author  then  continues  his  description  of  the  divine  defence  and  shelter,  and 
shows  the  cause  of  this  great  protection,  saying  that  such  a  man  is  well  guarded 
"  Because  he  hath  set  his  love  upon  me,  therefore  will  I  deliver  him  :  I  vdU 
set  him  on  high,  because  he  hath  known  my  name  "  (ibid.  ver.  14).  We  have 
shown  in  previous  chapters  that  by  the  "  knowledge  of  God's  name,"  the 
knowledge  of  God  is  meant.  The  above  passage  may  therefore  be  para- 
phrased as  follows :  "  This  man  is  well  guarded,  because  he  hath  known  me, 
and  then  (bi  chashak)  loved  me."  You  know  the  difference  between  the 
two  Hebrew  terms  that  signify  "  to  love,"  ahab  and  hashak.  When  a  man's 
love  is  so  intense  that  his  thought  is  exclusively  engaged  with  the  object  of 
his  love,  it  is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  term  hashak. 

The  philosophers  have  already  explained  how  the  bodily  forces  of  man  in 
his  youth  prevent  the  development  of  moral  principles.  In  a  greater  mea- 
sure this  is  the  case  as  regards  the  purity  of  thought  which  man  attains 
through  the  perfection  of  those  ideas  that  lead  him  to  an  intense  love  of  God. 
Man  can  by  no  means  attain  this  so  long  as  his  bodily  humours  are  hot.  The 
more  the  forces  of  his  body  are  weakened,  and  the  fire  of  passion  quenched, 
in  the  same  measure  does  man's  intellect  increase  in  strength  and  light ;  his 
knowledge  becomes  purer,  and  he  is  happy  wdth  his  knowledge.  When  this 
perfect  man  is  stricken  in  age  and  is  near  death,  his  knowledge  mightily  in- 
creases, his  joy  in  that  knowledge  grows  greater,  and  his  love  for  the  object 
of  his  knowledge  more  intense,  and  it  is  in  this  great  delight  that  the  soul 
separates  from  the  body.  To  this  state  our  Sages  referred,  when  in  reference 
to  the  death  of  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Miriam,  they  said  that  death  was  in  these 
three  cases  nothing  but  a  kiss.     They  say  thus :  We  learn  from  the  words. 

And  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died  there  in  the  land  of  Moab  by  the 
mouth  of  the  Lord  "  (Deut.  xxxiv.  5),  that  his  death  was  a  kiss.  The  same 
expression  is  used  of  Aaron  :  "  And  Aaron  the  priest  went  up  into  Mount 
Hor  ...  by  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  and  died  there  "  (Num.  xxxiii.  38). 
Our  Sages  said  that  the  same  was  the  case  with  Miriam  ;  but  the  phrase  "  by 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord  "  is  not  employed,  because  it  was  not  considered 
appropriate  to  use  these  words  in  the  description  of  her  death  as  she  was  a 
female.     The  meaning  of  this  saying  is  that  these  three  died  in  the  midst  of 


HOW    Tin:    PERFFXT    WORSIUV   (.(>!>  39, 

the  pleasure  derived  from  the  knowledge  of  God  and  their  ^rcat  love  for 
Him.  When  our  Sages  figuratively  call  the  knowledge  of  God  united  with 
intense  love  for  Him  a  kiss,  they  follow  the  well-known  poetical  diction, 
"  Let  him  kiss  mc  with  the  kisses  of  his  mouth  "  (Song  i.  2).  Thii  kind  of 
death,  which  in  truth  is  deliverance  from  death,  has  been  ascribed  by  our 
Sages  to  none  but  to  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Miriam.  The  other  prophet*  and 
pious  men  are  beneath  that  degree  ;   but  their  knowledge  of  God  i  'i- 

ened  when  death  approaches.     Of  them  Scripture  says,  "  Thy  ri),-.; cu 

shall  go  before  thee  ;  the  glory  of  the  Ixird  shall  be  thy  rcrcward  "  (lu. 
Iviii.  8).  The  intellect  of  these  men  remains  then  constantly  in  the  umc 
condition,  since  the  obstacle  is  removed  that  at  times  has  intervene  !  '  •  --n 
the  intellect  and  the  object  of  its  action  ;   it  continues  for  ever  in  1  n 

delight,  which  is  not  like  bodily  pleasure.  We  have  explained  this  in  our 
work,  and  others  have  explained  it  before  us. 

Try  to  understand  this  chapter,  endeavour  with  all  your  might  to  tpcnd 
more  and  more  time  in  communion  with  God,  or  in  the  attempt  to  approach 
Him  ;  and  to  reduce  the  hours  which  you  spend  in  other  occupatioiu,  and 
during  which  you  are  not  striving  to  come  nearer  unto  Him.  This  instruc- 
tion suffices  for  the  object  of  this  treatise. 

CHAPTER  Ul 

We  do  not  sit,  move,  and  occupy  ourselves  when  we  arc  alone  and  at  home, 
in  the  same  manner  as  we  do  in  the  presence  of  a  great  king  ;  we  $f>cak  and 
open  our  mouth  as  we  please  when  we  are  with  the  people  of  our  own  house- 
hold and  with  our  relatives,  but  not  so  when  we  are  in  a  royal  assembly.  If  we 
therefore  desire  to  attain  human  perfection,  and  to  be  truly  men  of  God,  we 
must  awake  from  our  sleep,  and  bear  in  mind  that  the  great  king  that  is  over 
us,  and  is  always  joined  to  us,  is  greater  than  any  earthly  king,  greater  than 
David  and  Solomon.  The  king  that  cleaves  to  us  and  embraces  us  is  the 
Intellect  that  influences  us,  and  forms  the  link  between  us  and  God.  We 
perceive  God  by  means  of  that  light  that  He  sends  down  unto  ui,  wherefore 
the  Psalmist  says,  "  In  Thy  light  shall  we  see  light  "  (Ps.  xxx\n.  9)  :  10  God 
looks  down  upon  us  through  that  same  light,  and  is  always  with  us  beholding 
and  watching  us  on  account  of  this  light.  "  Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret 
places  that  I  shall  not  see  him  ?  "  (Jcr.  xxiii.  24).     Note  this  particularly. 

When  the  perfect  bear  this  in  mind,  they  will  be  filled  with  fear  of  God, 
humility,  and  piety,  with  true,  not  apparent,  reverence  and  respect  of  God, 
in  such  a  manner  that  their  conduct,  even  when  alone  with  their  wives  or  in 
the  bath,  will  be  as  modest  as  they  are  in  public  intercourse  v'  '       '        '-ople. 

Thus  it  is  related  of  our  renowned  Sages  that  even  in  their   ,  _ :  ounc 

with  their  wives  they  behaved  with  great  modesty.  They  also  said.  "  Who 
is  modest  ?  He  whose  conduct  in  the  dark  night  is  the  ;amc  as  in  the  day." 
You  know  also  how  much  they  warned  us  not  to  w.ill:  -  "■  -nee  "  the 
fulness  of  the  whole  earth  is  His  glory  "  (Isa.  vi.  3).     '1  ■  t  that  by 

these  rules  the  above-mentioned  idea  will  be  firmly  established  in  the  heart* 
of  men,  viz.,  that  we  are  always  before  God.  and  it  is  in  the  presence  of  IIU 
glory  that  we  go  to  and  fro. '  The  great  men  among  our  Sages  would  not 
uncover  their  heads  because  they  believed  that  God's  glory  was  round  ihcm 


392  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

and  over  them  ;  for  the  same  reason  they  spoke  little.  In  our  Commentary 
on  the  Sayings  of  the  Fathers  (chap.  i.  17)  we  have  fully  explained  how  we 
have  to  restrict  our  speech.  Comp.  "  For  God  is  in  heaven  and  thou  upon 
earth,  therefore  let  thy  words  be  few  ''  (Eccles.  v.  l). 

What  I  have  here  pointed  out  to  you  is  the  object  of  all  our  religious  acts. 
For  by  [carrying  out]  all  the  details  of  the  prescribed  practices,  and  repeating 
them  continually,  some  few  pious  men  may  attain  human  perfection.  They 
will  be  filled  with  respect  and  reverence  towards  God  ;  and  bearing  in  mind 
who  is  with  them,  they  vdll  perform  their  duty.  God  declares  in  plain 
words  that  it  is  the  object  of  aU  religious  acts  to  produce  in  man  fear  of  God 
and  obedience  to  His  word — the  state  of  mind  which  we  have  demonstrated 
in  this  chapter  for  those  who  desire  to  know  th^^  truth,  as  being  our  duty  to 
seek.  Comp.  "  If  thou  wilt  not  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of  this  law  that 
are  written  in  this  book,  that  thou  mayest  fear  this  glorious  and  fearful  name, 
the  Lord  thy  God  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  58).  Consider  how  clearly  it  is  stated 
here  that  the  only  object  and  aim  of  "  all  the  words  of  this  law  "  is  to  [make 
man]  fear  "  the  glorious  and  fearful  name."  That  this  end  is  attained  by 
certain  acts  we  learn  likewise  from  the  phrase  employed  in  this  verse :  "  If 
thou  wilt  not  observe  to  do  .  .  .  that  thou  mayest  fear."  For  this  phrase 
clearly  shows  that  fear  of  God  is  inculcated  [into  our  hearts]  when  we  act  in 
accordance  with  the  positive  and  the  negative  precepts.  But  the  truths 
which  the  Law  teaches  us — the  knowledge  of  God's  Existence  and  Unity — 
create  in  us  love  of  God,  as  we  have  shown  repeatedly.  You  know  how  fre- 
quently the  Law  exhorts  us  to  love  God.  Comp.  "  And  thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
might  "  (Deut.  vi.  5).  The  two  objects,  love  and  fear  of  God,  are  acquired 
by  two  different  means.  The  love  is  the  result  of  the  truths  taught  in  the 
Law,  including  the  true  knowledge  of  the  Existence  of  God  ;  whilst  fear  of 
God  is  produced  by  the  practices  prescribed  in  the  Law.  Note  this  ex- 
planation. 

CHAPTER  LIII 

This  chapter  treats  of  the  meaning  of  three  terms  which  we  find  necessary 
to  explain,  viz.,  hesed  ("  loving  -  kindness  "),  mishpat  ("judgment"),  and 
zedakah  ("  righteousness  "). 

In  our  Commentary  on  the  Sayings  of  the  Fathers  (chap.  v.  7)  we  have 
explained  the  expression  hesed  as  denoting  an  excess  [in  some  moral  quality]. 
It  is  especially  used  of  extraordinary  kindness.  Loving-kindness  is  practised 
in  two  ways  :  first,  we  show  kindness  to  those  who  have  no  claim  whatever 
upon  us ;  secondly,  we  are  kind  to  those  to  whom  it  is  due,  in  a  greater 
measure  than  is  due  to  them.  In  the  inspired  writings  the  term  hesed  occurs 
mostly  in  the  sense  of  showing  kindness  to  those  who  have  no  claim  to  it 
whatever.  For  this  reason  the  term  hesed  is  employed  to  express  the  good 
bestowed  upon  us  by  God  :  "  I  will  mention  the  loving-kindness  of  the  Lord  " 
(Isa.  Ixiii.  7).  On  this  account,  the  very  act  of  the  creation  is  an  act  of  God's 
loving-kindness.  "  I  have  said,  The  Universe  is  built  up  in  loving-kindness  " 
(Ps.  Ixxxix.  3)  ;  i.e.,  the  building  up  of  the  Universe  is  an  act  of  loving-kind- 
ness. Also,  in  the  enumeration  of  God's  attributes,  Scripture  says :  "  And 
abundant  in  loving-kindness  "  (Exod.  xxxiv.  6). 


IIESEI).     MlSlll'M.     /l-DAKMl  39J 

The  term  ^i^^ddkah  is  derived  from  i^yJz-it,  **  rij-htcomncM" ;  it  driujto  the 

act  of  giving  every  one  liis  due,  and  of  showing  kindncM  to  c\ 

ing  as  it  deserves.      In  Scripture,  liowever,  the  cxprcsiion  v  •  ••  •' 

in  the  first  sense,  and  docs  not  apply  to  the  payment  ui  wl.ji  v.  •■• 

others.     When  we  therefore  give  the  hired  labourer  his  wage*,  or  pay  a  debt, 

we  do  not  perform  an  act  of  :;^dakah.     But  we  do  perform  an  act  1  •'       '      .*• 

when  we  fulfil  those  duties  towards  our  fellow-men  which  our  n. 

science  imposes  upon  us  ;    e.g.,  when  we  heal  the  wound  of  thr  iuv 
Thus  Scripture  says,  in  reference  to  the  returning  of  the  p! 
debtor]  :    "  And  it  shall  be  :;^-Jakdh  (righteousness)  unt     • 
11).     When  we  walk  in  the  way  of  virtue  we  act  ri;,- 
intellectual  faculty,  and  pay  what  is  due  unto  it ;   and  bccauic  every  virtue 
is  thus  zedakah,  Scripture  applies  the  term  to  the  virtue  of   faith  in  • 
Comp.  "  And  he  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  he  accounted  it  m  him  a*  :  ,. ... 
eousness  "  (Gen.  xv.  6)  ;  "  And  it  shall  be  our  righteousncM  "  (Dcui.  vi.  25). 

The  noun  mishpat,  "  judgment,"  denotes  the  act  of  deciding  upon  a  cer- 
tain action  in  accordance  with  justice  which  may  demand  cither  mercy  or 
punishment. 

We  have  thus  shown  that  hesed  denotes  pure  charity  ;   zedakah  kindnc»». 
prompted  by  a  certain  moral  conscience  in  man,  and  being  a  mcanj  of  a" 
ing  perfection  for  his  soul,  whilst  mishpat  may  in  s<}me  cases  find  cxpr< 
in  revenge,  in  other  cases  in  mercy. 

In  discussing  the  impropriety  of  admitting  attributes  of  Gtxl  (Part  I., 
chap,  liii.,  seq.),  we  stated  that  the  divine  attributes  which  occur  in  "^  c 

are  attributes  of   His  actions ;   thus  He  is  called  ^dj«</,  "  kind,"  bc^ ;ie 

created  the  Universe;  zaddik,  "  righteous,"  on  account  of  His  mercy  with 
the  weak,  in  providing  for  every  living  being  according  to  itt  powcn  ;  and 
shofet,  "judge,"  on  account  of  the  relative  gootl  and  the  threat  rcL-  ■ 

that  are  decreed  by  God's  justice  as  directed  by  His  wisdom.     'I  i 
names  occur  in  the  Pentateuch  :    "  Shall  not  the  Judge  {thof/t)  of  all  ih*- 
earth,"  etc.  (Gen.  iviii.  25) ;    "  Righteous  {■:;.addik)  and  upright    u    he  " 
(Deut.  xxxii.  4)  ;   "Abundant  in  loving-kindness"  {bfifd,  KkkI.  xixiv.  G). 

We  intended  in  explaining  these  three  terms  to  prepare  ihc  reader  fur  the 
next  chapter. 

CHAPTER  LIV 

The  term  Ipokmah  ("  wrisdom  ")  in  Hebrew  is  used  of  four  different  thi-  . 

(l)  It  denotes  the  knowledge  of  those  truths  which  lead  to  the  km-.' 

God.     Comp.   "But  where  shall   wisdom   be  found?"  (Job   xx 

"  If  thou  scekest  her  like  silver  "  (Prov.  ii.  4).     The  word  ->       '»  '•    .. 

in  this   sense.      (2)  The  expression  ^okmah  denotes   also  I  <•  of  any 

workmanship.     Comp.  "  And  every  wise-hearted  among  you  s: 

make  all  that  the  Lord  hath  commanded  "  (Exod.  xxxv.  lo)  ;   "   A 

women  that  were  wise-hcartcd  did  spin  "  {tbid.  vcr.  25).     (3)  It  »  - 

of  the  acquisition  of  moral  principles.     Comp.  "  And  teach  h«  lenaton 

wisdom  "  (Ps.  cv.  22)  ;  "  With  the  ancient  is  wisdom  "  (J  b  lii.  12)  :  f'^r  "  '• 

chiefly  the  disposition  for  acquiring  moral  principles  that  is  devr'-  •  ■ 

old  age  alone.     (4)  It  implies,  lastly,  the  notion  of  cunning  and  • 

comp.  "  Come  on,  let  us  deal  wisely  with  them  "  (Exod.  i.  10).     In  the  uroe 


394  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

sense  the  term  is  used  in  the  following  passages  :  "  And  fetched  thence  a 
wise  woman  "  (2  Sam.  xiv.  2)  ;  "  They  are  wise  to  do  evil  "  (Jer.  iv.  22). 
It  is  possible  that  the  Hebrew  hokmah  ("  wisdom  ")  expresses  the  idea  of 
cunning  and  planning,  which  may  serve  in  one  case  as  a  means  of  acquiring 
intellectual  perfection,  or  good  moral  principles ;  but  may  in  another  case 
produce  skill  in  workmanship,  or  even  be  employed  in  establishing  bad 
opinions  and  principles.  The  attribute  hakam  ("  wise  ")  is  therefore  given 
to  a  person  that  possesses  great  intellectual  faculties,  or  good  moral  principles, 
or  skill  in  art ;   but  also  to  persons  cunning  in  evil  deeds  and  principles. 

According  to  this  explanation,  a  person  that  has  a  true  knowledge  of  the 
whole  Law  is  called  wise  in  a  double  sense  ;  he  is  wise  because  the  Law 
instructs  him  in  the  highest  truths,  and  secondly,  because  it  teaches  him  good 
morals.  But  as  the  truths  contained  in  the  Law  are  taught  by  way  of 
tradition,  not  by  a  philosophical  method,  the  knowledge  of  the  Law,  and 
the  acquisition  of  true  wisdom,  are  treated  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets  and 
in  the  words  of  our  Sages  as  two  different  things ;  real  wisdom  demonstrates 
by  proof  those  truths  which  Scripture  teaches  us  by  way  of  tradition.  It  is  to 
this  kind  of  wisdom,  which  proves  the  truth  of  the  Law,  that  Scripture  refers 
when  it  extols  wisdom,  and  speaks  of  the  high  value  of  this  perfection,  and 
of  the  consequent  paucity  of  men  capable  of  acquiring  it,  in  sayings  like 
these  :  "  Not  many  are  wise  "  (Job  xxxii.  9)  ;  "  But  where  shall  wisdom  be 
found  "  {ibid,  xxviii.  12)  ?  In  the  writings  of  our  Sages  we  notice  likevwse 
many  passages  in  which  distinction  is  made  between  knowledge  of  the  Law 
and  wisdom.  They  say  of  Moses,  our  Teacher,  that  he  was  Father  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Law,  in  wisdom  and  in  prophecy.  When  Scripture  says 
of  Solomon,  "And  he  was  wiser  than  all  men"  (i  Kings  v.  ii),  our  Sages 
add,  "  but  not  greater  than  Moses  "  ;  and  the  phrase,  "  than  all  men,"  is 
explained  to  mean,  "  than  all  men  of  his  generation  "  ;  for  this  reason  [only] 
"  Heman,  Chalcol,  and  Darda,  the  sons  of  Mahol,"  the  renowned  wise  men 
of  that  time,  are  named.  Our  Sages  further  say,  that  man  has  first  to  render 
account  concerning  his  knowledge  of  the  Law,  then  concerning  the  acqui- 
sition of  wisdom,  and  at  last  concerning  the  lessons  derived  by  logical  con- 
clusions from  the  Law,  i.e.,  the  lessons  concerning  his  actions.  This  is  also 
the  right  order  :  we  must  first  learn  the  truths  by  tradition,  after  this  we 
must  be  taught  how  to  prove  them,  and  then  investigate  the  actions  that 
help  to  improve  man's  ways.  The  idea  that  man  will  have  to  render  account 
concerning  these  three  things  in  the  order  described,  is  expressed  by  our 
Sages  in  the  following  passage  :  "  When  man  comes  to  the  trial,  he  is  first 
asked,  '  Hast  thou  fixed  certain  seasons  for  the  study  of  the  Law  ?  Hast 
thou  been  engaged  in  the  acquisition  of  wisdom  ?  Hast  thou  derived  from 
one  thing  another  thing  ?  '  "  This  proves  that  our  Sages  distinguished 
between  the  knowledge  of  the  Law  on  the  one  hand,  and  wisdom  on  the 
other,  as  the  means  of  proving  the  lessons  taught  in  the  Law  by  correct 
reasoning. 

Hear  now  what  I  have  to  say  after  having  given  the  above  explanation. 
The  ancient  and  the  modern  philosophers  have  shown  that  man  can  acquire 
four  kinds  of  perfection.  The  first  kind,  the  lowest,  in  the  acquisition  of 
which  people  spend  their  days,  is  perfection  as  regards  property ;  the  pos- 
session of  money,  garments,  furniture,  servants,  land,  and  the  like ;    the 


MAi\'S    PI  KI  I  (TION 


315 


possession  of  the  title  of  a  great  king  bcloiipi  to  thii  claw,  'Hicrc  U  no  daw 
connexion  between  this  possession  and   iis  pt)ssejMir  ;    it  i»  a  :  4. 

ginary  relation  when  on  account  of  the  great  advaritai»c  a  j.; .c« 

from  these  possessions,  he  says,  This  is  my  house,  this  it  my  icrvant,  thi*  » 
my  money,  and  these  are  my  hosts  and  armies.  For  when  he  cxaminci  him- 
self he  will  find  that  all  these  things  are  external,  and  their  qualilirt  arc 
entirely  independent  of  the  possessor.  When,  therefore,  that  relation 
ceases,  he  that  has  been  a  great  king  may  one  morning  find  that  there  is  00 
difference  between  liim  and  the  lowest  person,  and  yet  no  change  hai  tikcn 
place  in  the  things  which  were  ascribed  to  liim.  The  philojophcn  hive 
shown  that  he  whose  sole  aim  in  all  his  exertions  and  endeavoun  it  the  pos- 
session of  this  kind  of  perfection,  only  seeks  perfectly  imaginary  and  tramicnt 
things  ;  and  even  if  these  remain  his  property  all  his  lifetime,  ihcy  Jo  not 
give  him  any  perfection. 

The  second  kind  is  more  closely  related  to  man's  body  than  the  fint.  It 
includes  the  perfection  of  the  shape,  constitution,  and  form  of  man'i  body ; 
the  utmost  evenness  of  temperaments,  and  the  proper  order  and  strength  of 
his  limbs.  This  kind  of  perfection  must  likewise  be  excluded  from  forming 
our  chief  aim  ;  because  it  is  a  perfection  of  the  body,  and  nrun  doe«  not 
possess  it  as  man,  but  as  a  living  being  ;  he  has  this  property  besides  in  common 
with  the  lowest  animal ;  and  even  if  a  person  possesses  the  greatest  powiblc 
strength,  he  could  not  be  as  strong  as  a  mule,  much  less  can  he  be  as  strong 
as  a  lion  or  an  elephant ;  he,  therefore,  can  at  the  utmost  have  strength  that 
might  enable  him  to  carry  a  heavy  burden,  or  break  a  thick  substance,  or 
do  similar  things,  in  which  there  is  no  great  profit  for  the  body.  The  «oul 
derives  no  profit  whatever  from  this  kind  of  perfection. 

The  third  kind  of  perfection  is  more  closely  connected  with  man  himscU 
than  the  second  perfection.  It  includes  moral  perfection,  the  highest 
degree  of  excellency  in  man's  character.  Most  of  the  precepts  aim  at  pro- 
ducing this  perfection  ;  but  even  this  kind  is  only  a  preparation  for  another 
perfection,  and  is  not  sought  for  its  own  sake.  For  all  moral  principle* 
concern  the  relation  of  man  to  his  neighbour  ;  the  perfection  of  man's  moral 
principles  is,  as  it  were,  given  to  man  for  the  benefit  of  mankind.  Imagine 
a  person  being  alone,  and  having  no  connexion  whatever  with  any  other 
person,  all  his  good  moral  principles  are  at  rest,  they  are  not  required,  and 
give  man  no  perfection  whatever.  These  principles  are  only  necessary  and 
useful  when  man  comes  in  contact  with  others. 

The  fourth  kind  of  perfection  is  the  true  perfection  of  man  ;  the  poisc»»ion 
of  the  highest  intellectual  faculties ;  the  possession  of  such  notions  which 
jead  to  true  metaphysical  opinions  as  regards  God.  With  this  perfection 
man  has  obtained  his  final  object ;  it  gives  him  true  human  perfection  ;  it 
remains  to  him  alone  ;  it  gives  him  immortality,  and  on  its  account  he  is 
called  man.  Examine  the  first  three  kinds  of  perfection,  you  will  find  that, 
if  you  possess  them,  they  are  not  your  property,  but  the  property  of  othen ; 
according  to  the  ordinary  view,  however,  they  belong  to  you  and  to  othcn. 
But  the  last  kind  of  perfection  is  exclusively  youn  ;  no  one  else  owns  any 
part  of  it,  "  They  shall  be  only  thine  own,  and  not  strangers'  with  thee  " 
(Prov.  V.  17).  Your  aim  must  therefore  be  to  attain  this  [fourth]  perfection 
that  is  exclusively  yours,  and  you  ought  not  to  continue  to  work  and  wtaxf 


396  GUIDE    FOR    THE    PERPLEXED 

yourself  for  that  which  belongs  to  others,  whilst  neglecting  your  soul  till  it 
has  lost  entirely  its  original  purity  through  the  dominion  of  the  bodily 
powers  over  it.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  beginning  of  those  poems, 
which  allegorically  represent  the  state  of  our  soul.  "  My  mother's  children 
were  angry  with  me  ;  they  made  me  the  keeper  of  the  vineyards  ;  but  mine 
own  vineyard  have  I  not  kept "  (Song  i.  6).  Also  the  following  passage 
refers  to  the  same  subject,  "  Lest  thou  give  thine  honour  unto  others,  and 
thy  years  unto  the  cruel  "  (Prov.  v.  9). 

The  prophets  have  likewise  explained  unto  us  these  things,  and  have  ex- 
pressed the  same  opinion  on  them  as  the  philosophers.  They  say  distinctly 
that  perfection  in  property,  in  health,  or  in  character,  is  not  a  perfection 
worthy  to  be  sought  as  a  cause  of  pride  and  glory  for  us  ;  that  the  knowledge 
of  God,  i.e.,  true  wisdom,  is  the  only  perfection  which  we  should  seek,  and 
in  which  we  should  glorify  ourselves.  Jeremiah,  referring  to  these  four 
kinds  of  perfection,  says  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Let  not  the  wise  man  glory 
in  his  vwsdom,  neither  let  the  mighty  man  glory  in  his  might,  let  not  the 
rich  man  glory  in  his  riches ;  but  let  him  that  glorieth  glory  in  this,  that  he 
understandeth  and  knoweth  me  "  (Jer.  ix.  22,  23).  See  how  the  prophet 
arranged  them  according  to  their  estimation  in  the  eyes  of  the  multitude. 
The  rich  man  occupies  the  first  rank ;  next  is  the  mighty  man ;  and  then 
the  wase  man  ;  that  is,  the  man  of  good  moral  principles :  for  in  the  eyes  of 
the  multitude,  who  are  addressed  in  these  words,  he  is  likewise  a  great  man. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  three  classes  are  enumerated  in  this  order. 

Our  Sages  have  likevnse  derived  from  this  passage  the  above-mentioned 
lessons,  and  stated  the  same  theory  that  has  been  explained  in  this  chapter, 
viz.,  that  the  simple  term  hokmah,  as  a  rule,  denotes  the  highest  aim  of 
man,  the  knowledge  of  God  ;  that  those  properties  which  man  acquires, 
makes  his  peculiar  treasure,  and  considers  as  his  perfection,  in  reality  do  not 
include  any  perfection  ;  and  that  the  religious  acts  prescribed  in  the 
Law,  viz.,  the  various  kinds  of  worship  and  the  moral  principles 
which  benefit  all  people  in  their  social  intercourse  with  each  other,  do 
not  constitute  the  ultimate  aim  of  man,  nor  can  they  be  compared 
to  it,  for  they  are  but  preparations  leading  to  it.  Hear  the  opinion  of  our 
Sages  on  this  subject  in  their  own  words.  The  passage  occurs  in  Bereshit 
Rabba,  and  runs  thus,  "  In  one  place  Scripture  says,  '  And  all  things  that  are 
desirable  (hafazim)  are  not  to  be  compared  to  her'  (Prov.  viii.  11);  and 
in  another  place,  '  And  all  things  that  thou  desirest  (Joafazeha)  are  not  to 
be  compared  unto  her  '  "  {ibid.  iii.  15).  By  "  things  that  are  desirable  " 
the  performance  of  Divine  precepts  and  good  deeds  is  to  be  understood, 
whilst  "  things  that  thou  desirest "  refer  to  precious  stones  and  pearls. 
Both — things  that  are  desirable,  and  things  that  thou  desirest — cannot  be 
compared  to  wisdom,  but  "  in  this  let  him  that  glorieth  glory,  that  he  under- 
standeth and  knoweth  me."  Consider  how  concise  this  saying  is,  and  how 
perfect  its  author  ;  how  nothing  is  here  omitted  of  all  that  we  have  put  forth 
after  lengthy  explanations  and  preliminary  remarks. 

Having  stated  the  sublime  ideas  contained  in  that  Scriptural  passage,  and 
quoted  the  explanation  of  our  Sages,  we  vnW  now  complete  what  the  re- 
mainder of  that  passage  teaches  us.  The  prophet  does  not  content  himself 
with  explaining  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  the  highest  kind  of  perfection  ; 


MAN'S    PFRFFCTION  3,^ 

for  if  this  only  had  been  his  intention,  he  would  have  uid,  "  Bui  in  ihii  let 
him  who  gloncth  glory,  that  he  unJcrstandcth  and  knoweth  mc  "  and  would 

have  stopped  there;    or  he  would  have  said,  "  that  he  v-  ' "  -1 

knoweth  me  that  I  am  One,"  or,  "  that  I  have  not  any  1  . 
there  is  none  like  me,"  or  a  similar  phrase.  He  say,,  however,  that  man  can 
only  glory  in  the  knowledge  of  tiod  and  in  the  knowledge  of  Hii  win  and 
attributes,  which  arc  His  actions,  as  we  have  shown  (Part  I.  liv.)  in  cipciund- 
ing  the  passage,  "Show  mc  now  thy  ways"  (F.xod.  xxxviii.  13).  Wc  are 
thus  told  in  tliis  passage  that  the  Divine  acts  which  ought  to  be  known,  and 
ought  to  serve  as  a  guide  for  our  actions,  are,  i>f)fd,  "  lovinR-kindnc*!." 
muhpat,  "  judgment,"  and  ^dakah,  "  righteousness."  Another  very  im- 
portant lesson  is  taught  by  the  additional  phrase,  "  in  the  earth."  It  implic* 
a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Law  ;  it  rejects  the  theory  of  those  who  boldly 
assert  that  God's  providence  does  not  extend  below  the  sphere  of  the  moon, 
and  that  the  earth  with  its  contents  is  abandoned,  that  "  the  I>ord  hath  for- 
saken the  earth"  (Ez.  viii.  12).  It  teaches,  as  has  been  taught  by  the 
greatest  of  all  wise  men  in  the  words,  "  The  earth  is  the  Lord's  "  (F.iod.  ix. 
29),  that  His  providence  extends  to  the  earth  in  accordance  with  its  nature, 
in  the  same  manner  as  it  controls  the  heavens  in  accordance  with  thdr 
nature.  This  is  expressed  in  the  words,  "  That  I  am  the  Ix)rd  which  exercise 
loving-kindness,  judgment,  and  righteousness  in  the  earth."  The  prophet  thui. 
in  conclusion,  says,  "  For  in  these  things  I  delight,  saith  the  \joxd"  i.e..  My 
object  [in  saving  this]  is  that  you  shall  practise  loving-kindness,  judgment,  and 
righteousness  in  the  earth.  In  a  similar  manner  we  have  shown  (Part  I.  liv.) 
that  the  object  of  the  enumeration  of  God's  thirteen  attributes  is  the  Iciion 
that  we  should  acquire  similar  attributes  and  act  accordingly.  The  object 
of  the  above  passage  is  therefore  to  declare,  that  the  perfection,  in  which 
man  can  truly  glory,  is  attained  by  him  when  he  has  acquired — as  far  as  this 
is  possible  for  man — the  knowledge  of  God,  the  knowledge  of  HisjProvidmce, 
and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  influences  His  creatures  in  their  production 
and  continued  existence.  Having  acquired  this  knowledge  he  will  then  be 
determined  always  to  seek  loving-kindness,  judgment,  and  rightcou»nc*t,  and 
thus  to  imitate  the  ways  of  God.  VV'c  have  explained  this  many  time*  in 
this  treatise. 

This  is  all  that  T  thought  proper  to  discuss  in  this  treatise,  and  which  I 
considered  useful  for  men  like  you.  I  hope  that,  by  the  lulp  of  Ciod,  )-ou 
will,  after  due  reflection,  comprehend  all  the  things  which  I  have  treated 
here.  May  He  grant  us  and  all  Ismel  with  us  to  attain  what  He  promi«ciJ 
us,  "Then  the  eyes  of  the  blind  shall  be  opened,  and  the  cars  of  the  deaf 
shall  be  unstopped  "  (Isa.  xxxv.  5)  ;  "  The  people  that  walked  in  darknn-t 
have  seen  a  great  light ;  they  that  dwell  in  the  shadow  of  death  uj?on  them 
hath  the  light  shined  "  {ibid.  ix.  l). 

God  is  near  to  all  who  call  Him,  if  they  call  Him  in  truth,  and  turn  to 
Him.  He  is  found  by  every  one  who  seeks  Him,  if  he  alwj)-,  goes  towards 
Him,  and  never  goes  astray.     AsitN. 


INDEX 

INDLX  OF  SCKII'TUKAL  PASSAGES. 


PACE 

rir.* 

Genesis  i.-iii.                 .         i 

55,   212-218 

Genesis  x. 

!'■•.    •,''1 

i.  1 

4,  218.  206 

xi.  1-9 

I 

i.  2 

55.159 

XI.  7 

.. 

i.  4  S9-    • 

•      275 

sii.  3 

J«5 

1.  5 

•      214 

xii.  5 

94 

i.  8 

.      214 

XII.    II 

37a 

i.  lo 

17.  213 

XIV. 

,             , 

3»l 

i.  II 

•      215 

XIV.  13 

,H 

i.  17        . 

.      214 

xiv.  19 

i.  i8 

•      159 

XIV.  22 

. 

«ri 

i.  20          . 

56.  214 

xiv.  23 

» 

i«i 

i.  22 

•      379 

XV.  I 

>».  54.  235.  241.  3t^ 

i.  26 

13,  14,  160 

XV.  4 

2  It.  34tt 

i.  27 

13.  216 

XV.  5 

.,'> 

i.  28 

•      275 

XV.  <i 

'i':   >>J 

i.  30 

56 

XV.  q  sq. 

•     M4 

i.  31                  •  75.  2 

67.  308,  309 

XV.  12 

•      145 

ii.  I 

216,  275 

XV.  17 

30.  ja 

ii.  2 

99 

xvi.  I 

90 

U.   V 

.      218 

xvi.  7 

5«.  »J8 

ii.  5 

.     215 

xvi.  9 

.     356 

ii.  6 

•      215 

XVI.  II 

.     356 

ii.  7 

.     218 

xvii.  7 

.     37» 

ii.  16 

15 

xvii.  22 

.       t3 

ii.  20 

.      218 

xviii.  I 

.      244 

ii.  23  sq. 

216 

xviii.  2 

17.  i6i.  aj7 

ii.  24 

2l6 

xviii.  3 

90 

iii.  5 

14 

xviii.  8 

•3 

iii.  6 

15 

xviii.  13 

1  ^.  ■       «  ■  « 

iii.  7 

16 

xviii.  i<) 

30- 

iii.  8 

33 

xviii.  21 

^i.     !■■ 

iii.  16 

39.  2(>2 

xvui.  23 

17 

iii.  18      . 

16 

xviii.  25 

y% 

iii.  24      . 

66 

xix. 

3«l 

iv.  7 

.     298 

XIX.  17 

17 

iv.  25 

207 

XIX.  19 

.     a3i 

V. 

.     381 

XIX.   21 

IM 

V.  3 

20 

six.  23    . 

3» 

vi.  viii.    . 

.      381 

xix.  26    . 

•  7 

vi.    2       . 

25 

XX.  3 

t56 

vi.  3 

25 

XX.  II 

■36 

vi.  5        .         .         . 

63.  65 

XII.  19    . 

16 

vi.  6        . 

39.  <'5 

xxi.  31    . 

'"" 

vi.  12      . 

.        67 

xxi.  33    . 

vi.  13 

•      235 

xsii.  t 

vii.  2 

19 

XXII  8 

vii.  15     • 

55 

XXII.  12 

yu 

vii.  17     • 

29 

xxii.  14   • 

viii.  5 

33 

xxii.  IS 

JJ5.  «44.  -■^" 

viii.  21    . 

39,  63,  298 

xxii.  21 

.      t^ 

viii.  22    . 

203 

ixii.  30 

•    5?! 

ix.  3        • 

.       56 

xxiii.  8 

• 

y» 

399 


400 


INDEX 


Genesis  xxiii.  17 
xxiv.  3    . 
xxiv.  7  . 
xxiv.  16. 
xxiv.  31 . 
XXV.  18  . 
XXV.  22  . 
XXV.  23  . 
XXV.  24   . 
XXV.  26    . 
xxvi.  3    . 
xxvii.  27 
xxvii.  31 
xxvii.  35 
xxvii.  41 
xxviii.  12 
xxviii.  13 
xxviii.  15 
xxviii.  16 
xxix.  2    . 
xxix.  10  . 
xxix.  31  . 
xxix.  32  . 
xxix.  35  . 
XXX.  30   . 
xxxi.  3    . 
xxxi.  II. 
xxxi.  12  . 
xxxi.  13  . 
xxxi.  24  . 
xxxi.  49  . 
xxxii.  2  . 
xxxii.  4  . 
xxxii.  6  . 
xxxii.  22 
xxxii.  24 
xxxii  25 
xxxii.  31 
xxxii.  33 
xxxiii.  3. 
Kxxiii.  5  . 
xxxiii.  II 
xxxiii.  14 

XXXV.  I  . 

xxxv.  10 
XXXV.  13 
xxxv.  22 

xxxvi.  12 
xxxvi.  20  sqq. 

xxxvi.   2Z 

xxxvi.  31  sq. 
XXX  vii.  15 
xxxvii.  31 
xxxviii.  23 
xxxix.  6 
xl.  7 
xli.  43 
xli.  46 
xlii.  26 
xlii.  30 
xliii.  18 
zliii.  26 
xliv.  4 
xliv.  18 
xlv.  7 
xlv.  7,  8 
xlv.  16 
xlvi.  2  sq 


PAGE 

24 

2X8 

188 

28 

250 

53 
236 
236 

29 
243 
289 

60 
364 
32 
97 
7.  166 
7.  25,  31 
289 
243 
17 
257 
65 
65 
25 
37 
235 
36,  235,  240,  243 

65 
36 
236 
31 
33.  237 
160 
340 
31 
237 
237 
237 
371 
30 
76 
76 
37 
235 
235 
23 
34 
381 
380.  381 
381 
380,  381 
238 
364 
374 
13 
52 
107 

25 
29 
89 
342 
31 

2,  36 
27 
250 
250 
58 
3<').  235,  236,  243 


Genesis  xlvi.  4 
xlvi.  29 
xlvi.  34 
xlvii.  3 
xlviii.  3 

E'^odus  i.  10 
ii.4 
ii.  14 
ii.  17. 
ii.  25 
iii.  I 
iii.  2 
iii.  6 
iii.  7 
iii.  9 
iii.  12 
iii.  13 
iii.  14 
iii.  15 
iii.  16,  18 
iv.  I 
iv.  2 
iv.  II 
iv.  20 
iv.  25 
iv.  31 

V.  5 
vi.  3 
vi.  9 
viii.  12 
viii.  18 
viii.  22 
ix.  3 
ix.  23 
ix.  29 
X.  2 
X.  13 
X.  19 
xi.  8 
xii.  8  sq 
xii.  II 
xii.  12 
xii.  15 
xii.  19 
xii.  22 
xii.  23 
xii.  25 
xii.  46 
xii.  48 
xiii.  9 
xiii.  10 
xiii.  15 
xiii.  16 
xiii.  17  sq 
xiii.  19 
xiv.  3 
xiv.  10 
xiv.  27 
XV.  4 
XV.  6 
XV.  10 
XV.  18 
XV.  25  sq 
xvi.  4 
xvi.  7 
xvi.  18 
xvi.  32 


•54.  I 


Top      o 


PAGE 

38 
107 

359 

340 

243 

29 

393 

25 

97 

242 

65 
98 

62,  356 
18 
65 
65 

89.  383 

93 

93 

388 

94 
94 
94 
263,  266 
98 
27 
65 
97 
224 
58 
397 
318 

359 
61 

33 

8,397 

340 

55 
55.214 

36 
361 
361 

30 
346 

56 
370 
32,  359 

32 
361 
361 
325 
27.  361 
340 
325 
324 
339 
383 

18 
210 
107 

61 
213 
203 
326 

305 
58 

271 
28 


305 


INDEX 


401 


PACE 

Exodus  xvii.  ^    . 

30.  3»      i 

xvii.  6    . 

n> 

xvii.  8  sq. 

■      34') 

xvii.  I'l   . 

21.37 

xviii.  23  . 

2.S 

xix.  3      . 

23 

xix.  4       . 

•      352 

xix.  6      . 

264. 322 

xix.  9      . 

32,  221 

xix.  10    . 

•      327 

xix.  n     . 

23.  3f> 

xix.  14    . 

.      346 

xix.  15    . 

.      327 

xix.  19    . 

.      221 

xix.  20    . 

.        36 

xix.  22    . 

19 

XX.  5        . 

•        77 

XX.  7       . 

.        06 

XX. II       . 

.      219 

XX.  18      . 

60 

XX. 19     . 

97. 223 

XX. 20     . 

23.305 

XX. 21     . 

223. 323 

XX.  24     . 

•      357 

XX.  26       . 

•      357 

xxi.  12     . 

•      277 

xxi.  13    . 

•      343 

xxi.  14     • 

■      341 

xxi.  16    . 

•      347 

xxi.  19     . 

•      344 

xxi.  28  sq. 

•      342 

xxi.  24     • 

37.  58.  64 

xxi.  26  sq. 

•      341 

xxi.  32     . 

•      342 

xxi.  37    • 

■      344 

xxii.  5     • 

32 

xxii.  8     . 

160.  344 

xxii.  9     . 

•      37-; 

xxii.  15   • 

•      374 

xxii.  16   . 

•      353 

xxii.  17   ■ 

•      333 

xxii.  19   . 

323 

xxii.  23   . 

59.315 

xxii.  25    . 

•      315 

xxii.  27   . 

•      315 

xxii.  29   • 

59 

xxii.  30  . 

•      371 

xxiii.  II  . 

•      340 
.        58 

xxiii.  13  • 

xxiii.  16  . 

•      353 

xxiii.  17  • 

.      371 

xxiii.  19  • 

•      339 

xxiii.  20  . 

.      223 

xxiii.  21  . 

96. 163 

xxiii.  25  . 

51.  323 

xxiv.  I  sq. 

221 

xxiv.  2    . 

28.  387 

xxiv.  10  . 

17.  10.  37 

xxiv.  II  . 

.   18,  19.  317 

xxiv.  16  . 

34.  96 

XXV.  8      . 

.      323 

16 

.      356 

XXV.  9      • 

XXV.  18    . 

XXV.  22   . 

24S 

XXV.  40   . 

xxvi.  3    • 

10 

xxvi.  12  . 

53 

VAOI 


E 


xodu'.  XXVI.  20  . 

.      fll6 

XXVlii.   2 

.      357 

XXVIII.  3H 

.      J*-* 

xxviii.  41 

•      J»l 

xxviii.  42 

3^:" 

XXIX.  10  . 

J",  "• 

xxix.  31  . 

xxix.  45  • 

XXX.  22  s<|. 

XXXI.  13  . 

XXXI.  15  . 

< ' 

xxxi.  17  . 

xxxi.  18  . 

01.  •/  - 

xxxii.  9  . 

».■ 

xxxii.  16 

XXXII.  19 

xxxii.  32 

•  4 

xxxii.  31 

J4'.  -•■' 

xxxii.  34 

• 

xxxiii.  H 

xxxiii.  II 

xxxiii.  ij 

xxxiii.  14 

>* 

xxxiii.  I'l 

7* 

xxxiii.  !■* 

.     17.  75>96 

xxxiii.  V}  sq.    . 

75 

xxxiii.  30 

73. 9* 
a6 

xxxiii.  2t 

xxxiii.  32 

S« 

xxxiii.  23 

V.    \J.   ^\ 

xxxiii.  3'> 

xxxiv.  «. 

xxxiv.  7 

J".  11.  7^ 

xxxiv.  14 

M  1 

xxxiv.  16 

xxxiv.  2\ 

'.'.  '• 

xxxiv.  3'< 

J»5 

xxxiv.  2» 

1 

XXXV. 10 

* 

XXXV. 25 

' 

XXXV.  3S 

xxxvi.  ft 

xxxvi.  7 

xl.  34 

l>oviticus  i.  2 

1.6 

il.  I 

IL  II     . 

U.13 

U.  13 

Iv.  3 

iV.  12    • 

Iv.  15   . 

tv.  ti     . 

Iv.  St    . 

tv.  33     . 

Iv.  26  . 
Iv.  27  • 
V.  II       . 

V.  34     • 

vL  16   . 
vii.  I  <  *r 
viJ.  n  . 
V«.  23  . 
vIlL  J2 

iX.  3        . 

X.  s      • 


1*t 


i7o 
5* 


403 


INDEX 


Leviticus  xi.  7 

xi.  27    . 

xi.  29    . 

xi.  44    . 

xii.  3     . 

xii.  4     . 
xii.  8    . 
xii.  16  sq. 
xiii.  5    . 
xiii.  10 
xiv.  33 

XV.  I      . 

XV.  5  . 
XV.  15  . 
XV.  19  . 
XV,  25  . 
XV.  28   . 

xvi.3   . 

xvi.  16 
xvi.  20  sq. 
xvi.  30 
xvii.  5  sq. 
xvii.  7 
xvii.  10 
xvii.  12 
xvii.  13 
xvii.  26 
xviii.  3 
xviii.  II 
xviii.  22 
xviii.  24 
xix.  2   . 
xix.  14 
xix.  15 
xix.  19 
xix.  20 
xix.  23 

XIX.  25 
xix.  26 
xix.  30 
xix.  32 

XX.  3  . 
XX.  5     . 

XX.  7    .  ' 

x^-  15  sq. 
XX. 23  . 
xxi.  I   . 
xxi.  7   . 
xxi.  10 
xxi.  14  ' 

xxii.  4  . 
xxii.  24 
xxii.  27 
xxii.  28 
xxiii.  29 
xxiii.  30 
xxiiii.  43 
xxiv.  16 
xxiv.  20 
XXV.  23 
XXV.  30 
xxvi.  I 
xxvi.  12         ' 
xxvi.  16 
xxvi.  21 
xxvi.  22 
xxvi.  24 


PAGE 

•  370 

•  367 

•  367 

•  368 

•  379 

•  368 

•  357 

•  346 

•  323 

•  56 

•  370 

•  367 

•  367 

•  367 

•  368 

•  367 

•  368 

•  364 

•  369 

•  366 
346,  367 

•  363 

•  364 

•  362 

•  371 

•  363 

•  346 

•  334 

•  377 

•  376 
■   369 

78,  369 

•  346 

•  55 

•  367 

•  54 

•  310 

•  337 

•  362 
316,  367 

331 

52.336.369 

336,  362 

•  327 

•  342 
317,334.338 

•  369 

•  379 

•  369 

•  379 

•  360 

•  379 

•  379 

•  371 

•  346 

•  287 

•  353 

•  96 

•  344 

•  340 

24 

•  357 

•  326 

287 

•  331 

•  334 

•  332 


234, 


Leviticus  xxvi.  27  sq, 
xxvi.  38 
xxvi.  42 
xxvii,  9 
xxvii.  10 
xxvii.  13 
xxvii.  15 
xxvii.  28 
xxvii.  2i 
Numbers  V.  n  sq. 
V.  15    . 

VI. 

vi.  4     . 

vi.  5     . 

vi.  23    . 

vi.  26   . 

vi.  27   . 

vii.  89  . 

ix.  18   . 

ix.  19  sq. 

ix.  23    . 

X.  9      . 

xi.  I      . 

xi.2 

xi.  7     . 

xi.  17  . 

xi.  25  sq. 

Xi.  31   . 

xii.  6     225 

xii.  7    . 

xii.  8     . 

xii.  9    . 

xiii.  32 

xiv.  10 

XV.  5     . 

XV.  15  . 

XV.  20  . 

XV.  22  . 

XV.  23   . 

XV.  24  . 

XV.  30  . 

XV.  38  . 

XV.  39  . 

xvi.  3   . 

xvi.  27 

xix.  6  . 

xix.  II 

XX.  5     . 

XX.  16  .  .  26, 

xxii.  20 

xxii.  22 

xxii.  32 

xxiii.  5 

xxiii.  21 

xxiv.  4 

xxiv.  7 

xxiv.  8 

xxvii.  II 

xxviii.  6 

xxviii.  15 

xxviii.  22 

xxviii.  30 

xxix.  5 

xxxi.  25 

xxxi.  33 

xxxii.  21 

xxxiiL 


235 


39. 


et 


PAGE 
332 

39 

388 

361 
346 
361 
361 
329 
361 
370 
364.  366 

372 

372 

327 

91 

53 

90,  91 

|3 
383 

383 

324 

331 

58,63 

364 
254 
23.  55.  254 
3.  55.  242 
213 
passim 

75 
98,  245 

34 
39 
97 
366 
329 
339 
363 
320 
40 
348 
325 
54 
29 
25 
370 
368 
354 
.383 
235 
105 
298 
242 
17 

242 

29 

264 

351 

363 
365, 369 
365. 369  ^ 

365 

365 

340 

344 

51 

382 


160,  237 


INDEX 


403 


Numbers  xixiii.  2. 
xxxiii.  38 

XXXV.    II 

XXXV.  19 
XXXV. 25 
XXXV.  34 
Deuteronomy  i.  2 
i.  17 
i.  28 
i.  45 
ii.  2 
iii.  II 
iii.  II 
iv.  6 
iv.  7 
iv.8  232 
iv.  ir 
iv.  12 
iv.  15 
iv.  17 
iv.  19 
iv.  24 
iv.  35 
iv.  36 
iv.  39 

V.  4 

v.  5 
V.  13 


r 


15 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
26 

V.  27 
V.  28 
V.  30 
V.  39 
vi.  5 
vi.  9 
vi.  15 
vi.  24 
vi.  25 
vii.  5 
vii.  10 
vii.  26 
viii.  2 
viii.  3 
viii.  12  sq. 
viii.  15 
viii.  r6 
X.  12 
X.  14 
X.  16 
X.  17 
xi.  12 
xi.  13 
xi.  16  sq. 
xi.  20 
xii.  2 
xii.  3 
xii.  II 
xii.  20 
xii.  23 
xii.  24 
xii.  27 


310, 


55. 


PACK 
382 

•  390 

.  343 

•  343 

•  343 

•  369 
.  383 

27 

•  247 
59 

•  235 
.  248 
.   248 

168, 321 
28 

341.  345.379 
54.  265 
53. 222 
17 
16,  57 

•  159 
40 

222,  323.  386 

213.  386 

55 

53 

221 

•  325 
219.  339 

213 

•  231 

.   222 

221 

.   327 

•  325 

28 

.   387 

3.  57 

•  323 

51.  55.  302 

•  325 

50 
3x3. 321 

•  393 
320 

51 

•  335 
304.  305 
286,  320 

340 
.   382 

•  305 
232,  318 

.   163 

•  327 

53 
.   58 

14.  323.  386 
50.  320 

.   325 
320 
.   320 

•  355 
287, 325 

56 

.   362 

362 


Deuteronomy  zil.  10 


sii.  31 
xui.  I 
xiii.  I 
ziii.  2 

Zili.  4 

xiii.  s 
xiii.  t(> 

xiii.  18  . 

xiv.  2t  . 

ziv.  23  %q. 

xiv.  3]  . 

ziv.  39  . 

ziv.  33  . 

xiv.  38  . 

ZV.   II 

zvi.  3      . 
xvi.  14    . 
zvi.  i3   . 
zvi.  31    . 
zvi.  33    . 
zvii.  3    . 
zvii.  $    . 
zvii.  15  . 
zviii.  3   . 
zviii.  4   . 
zviii.  i^ 
zviii.  18  «q. 
ziz.  5      . 
ziz.  16  sq. 
xiz.  19   . 
zz.  5      . 
xz.  7      • 
xz.  16    . 
zz.  18     . 
zzi.  I  sq. 
zzi.  ID  sq. 
zzi.  13  sq. 
zzi.  15    . 
zzi.  16    . 
zzi.  18  sq. 
zzi.  30   . 
zxii.  I  sq. 
zzii.  5    . 
zzii.  7    • 
xxii.  8 
zxii.  9    • 
zxii.  10  . 
zzii.  13  . 
ZXII.  13  •<)• 
xxii.  14  • 
xzii.  18  sq. 
xxii.  36  . 
zzii.  2Q  . 
zziii.  I    . 
zziii.  3   . 
zziit.  y  ■ 
zziii.  8   . 
zziii.  13  tq. 
zziii.  M 
zxiii.  16 
zxiii.  17 
xxiii.  t8 
zziii.  19 
xxiti.  3) 

XXIV.  1     . 

xziv.  6   . 


5«. 


•  SS7 
77.  3«7.  J*7 

•  547 

•  M7 
ail 


304. 

io^ 

H.  5). 

",1 

iii 

J7I 

S66 

Si« 

S19 

35* 

S5» 

S40 

366 

SSO 

357 

Jl 

3SJ 

364 

339 

JJ9 

««J 

"J 

SSl 

37  S 

345 

3«« 

294 

51.77 

52.77 

343 

350 

3i« 

19 

33" 

346 

3«7 

343 

355 

.313 

t94 

Sio 

37» 

37 

S73 

S75 

34* 

374 

57 

tit 

.  \-  . 

\~ 

W" 

549 

»4».  »49 

.  55« 

J4 

.  »<« 

575 

573 

S«o 

sfe 

371 

34« 

404 


INDEX 


PAGE 


Deuteronomy  xxiv.  ii 

•          • 

393 

J  udges  ii.  i  sq. 

XXV.  2      . 

. 

349 

ii.  4 

XXV.  3     . 

. 

346 

ii.  18 

XXV.  5  sq. 

. 

374 

V.  4 

XXV.  9  sq. 

. 

374 

vi.  21 

XXV.  17  sq. 

349 

.  381 

vii.  2 

xxvi.  17  sq. 

. 

239 

viii.  18 

xxvii.  5 

. 

356 

X.  16 

xxvii.  9 

. 

327 

xi.  29 

xxviii.  I 

•          • 

22 

ziii.  6 

xxviii.  6 

•          • 

321 

xiv.  17 

xxviii.  9 

•          • 

34 

xiv.  19 

xxviii.  30 

•          • 

264 

xxi.  22 

xxviii.  33 

. 

334 

I  Samuel  i.  9 

xxviii.  39  sq. 

. 

334 

i.  18 

xxviii.  43 

. 

22 

i.  23 

xxviii.  49 

58.  67 

ii.  2 

xxviii.  56 

. 

305 

ii.  9 

xxviii.  58 

306 

392 

ii.  24 

xxix.  17 

• 

320 

ii.  35 

xxix.  28 

. 

232 

iiL  7 

XXX.  15 

54.57 

340 

vi.  5 

XXX.  12 

. 

231 

xi.  6 

xxxi.  12 

. 

366 

xii.  21 

xxxi.  17 

33 

3B9 

XV.  22 

xxxi.  18 

34 

380 

xvi.  13 

xxxi.  22  sq. 

. 

366 

xviii.  14 

xxxi.  29 

. 

50 

XX.  22  . 

xxxii.  4 

26,  204, 

271. 

sx.  34  . 

304.  3 

09.  375. 

393 

XX.  36  . 

xxxii.  5 

. 

268 

xxii.  8  . 

xxxii.  6 

• 

161 

xxiv.  21 

xxxii.  13 

. 

105 

XXV.  9 

xxxii.  14 

. 

248 

XXV.  29 

xxxii.  15 

• 

340 

XXV.  37 

xxxii.  17 

. 

363 

xxviii.  14 

xxxii.  18 

. 

26 

2  Samuel  ii.  23     . 

xxxii.  19 

5 

[.  65 

ii.  26     . 

xxxii.  21 

. 

51 

xiv.  2   . 

xxxii.  22 

. 

51 

xvi.  10 

xxxii.  24 

• 

334 

xvi.  12 

xxxii.  30 

. 

26 

xviii.  14 

xxxii.  36 

. 

65 

xxi.  10 

xxxii.  47 

310. 

334 

xxi.  16 

xxxiii.  10 

. 

339 

xxiii.  I 

xxxiii.  16 

• 

34 

xxiii.  2  sq 

xxxiii.  23 

20. 

209 

xxiii.  3 

xxxiii.  26         I 

05.  107. 

188 

xxiv.  II 

xxxiii.  27 

. 

106 

xxiv.  17 

xxxiii.  29 

. 

209 

I  Kings  i.  6 

xxxiv.  5 

. 

390 

iii.  5 

xxxiv.  10  sq.   . 

• 

224 

iii.  15 

foshua  i.  5 

• 

289 

V.   II 

iii.  II  sq. 

• 

218 

vi.  18      . 

iii.  18 

. 

26 

vii.  14     . 

V.  2 

, 

26 

ix.  2 

V.  8 

. 

56 

ix.  3 

V.  9 

. 

235 

X.  29 

V.  13  sq. 

26,  237, 

244 

xi.  II 

vi.  26 

. 

383 

xiii.  4 

X.  12  sq. 

. 

224 

xiv.  7 

xxii. 

. 

349 

xvi.  2 

xxii.  12    . 

• 

349 

xvii.  9     . 

xxii.  16    . 

• 

349 

xvii.  17  . 

xxii.  22    . 

. 

349 

xviii.  26 

xxiv.  2     . 

. 

317 

xix.  9 

xxiv.  27  . 

• 

98 

xix.  x6    . 

PACE 
26,  160,  237 
237 
^8,241 
209.  265 
247 

235 
13 
56 

241 

162 
32 

241 

76 

23 

5« 
24 
26 

289,  389 

30 

54.56 

240 

14 

241 
380 
325 
242 

54 
250 

39 
30 
24 
24 
99 
56 

56 

13 

53 

39 

394 

249 

255 

54 

100 

97 

241 
242 

243 
236 
298 

39 
243 
243 
394 
220 

29 

243 

57.  58 

107 

243 

220 

29 

2q 

250 

57 

317 

236 

58,61 


INDFX 


405 


TACK 


I  Kings  xxii.  ig 

17.  244 

Uaiah  xl.  I  J 

x.xii.  1 1,  24 

•      233 

xl.  15 

2  Kings  V.  20 

54 

Xl.   IH 

viii.  4  sq. 

•      224 

Xl.  32 

X.  15 

54 

Xl.  2S 

xiv.  8      . 

53 

xl.  36 

xvii.  9     . 

86,  202 

Xli.   in 

xviii.  17 

.      264 

xlii.  14 

xix.  16 

59 

xUi.  ao 

xxiii.  25 

54 

xiiii.  a 

Isaiah  i.  i   . 

18 

xliii.  7 

i.  II 

•      325 

xliv.  13     . 

i.  15 

•        59 

xUv.  19     . 

i.  19 

•      327 

xiv.  7 

i  20 

39.  bi 

xiv.   13 

ii.3 

33 

xiv.  18 

ii.  5 

34 

xiv.  19 

ii.  6 

20,  16H 

xlvij.  13    . 

iii.  3 

53 

xlviii.  4     . 

iii.  12 

.      262 

xlviii.  13   . 

iii.  26 

77 

I.  4    . 

V.  6 

•        2-19 

li.  I 

V.  30 

17 

ILitq.       . 

vi.  I  sq. 

247.  258 

U.I2»q.     . 

vi.  2 

57 

liii.  1 

vi.  3 

96,  301 

liv.  10 

vi.  4 

20 

Iv.  1  sq.      . 

vi.  7 

27 

Iv.  8  »q.     . 

vi.  8 

240.  244 

Iv.  10 

vi.  12 

.       SOS 

Iv.  13 

viii.  10 

2of> 

Iv.  10 

ix.  I 

30ft 

Ivii.  13 

X.  6 

•      249 

Ivii.  I J 

xi.  6  sq. 

.       267 

Iviii.  3 

xii.  3 

4C 

Iviii.  8 

xiii.  3,  5 

•       24? 

Ivui.  14 

xiii.  10 

.       205 

lix.  3 

xiii.  13 

205,  as7 

Is.  20 

xiv.  8 

218.  248 

Ixiii.  7 

xvii.  13 

.     218 

Ixiii.  0 

xix.  I 

.       67 

Ixni.  10 

xix.  3 

55 

Isni.  IS 

XX.  3 

.      246 

Ixni.  18  M] 

xxiii.  18 

.      251 

Ixiv.  0 

xxiv.  16 

57 

Ixv.  I   8    . 

xxiv.  17  S( 

1. 

.      205 

Ixv.  13 

xxiv.  23 

.      205 

Ixv.  15  tQ. 

xxvi.  2 

.      259 

Ixvi.  I 

xxvi.  4 

26 

Ixvi.  17 

xxvi.  10 

.      277 

Ixvi.  33 

xxvi.  21 

33 

Irrrmiih  i.  S 

1.  6        . 
1.8 
1.  II  ftq. 

xxviii.  7 

262.  372 

xxviii.  8 

262,  364 

xxix.  II 

204.  247 

xxix.  13 

28 

1.  la 
1.13     . 
11.5      . 
U.  6 

11.13 
11.31 
iii.  14 
iU.  IS 
Iv.  10 

iv.  33 

iv.  33 

xxix.  14 

.      iM 

XXX. iq 

306 

XXX. 20 

57 

XXX.  26 

306 

XXX.  27 
xxxi.  2 
xxxii.  6 
xxxiv.  3  s 
xxxiv.  17 

XXXV.  S 

1- 

61 

24 

86 

.      306 

.      350 

16.  307 

xxxviii.  9 
xl.6 

56 
3» 

*•  3 

•  5$ 
J6«.t7« 

•  T7 
»4.  t71 

T7 
lU 

3»9 
ito 

i« 
5*9 
■75 

«5 

54 

<t6 

aio 

275 

a*^.  311 

%» 

1&4 
««5 

'U 

toy 
tor 

61 
•07 

40 

'94 

to 

t^ 

Sfto 

«57 

i9.  4S 

flS 

391 

13 

toy 

»<>7.  ioa 

i>.  3oy 

<'».  307 

61 

toy 

toy 

to- 

30^ 

to» 

:i.  61 

\»» 

to« 

tai 

aai 

»»« 

an.  a>9 

tn 


4* 

S« 

61 

5»4 

\yt 
u  171 


4o6 


INDEX 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Jeremiah  V.  8      ....     262 

Ezekiel  ii.  6          .          .          .          .     229 

V.  10    . 

. 

262 

ii.  9 

•       239 

V.  12     . 

28 

2,  326 

iii.  12 

21 

vii.  9  sq. 

326 

iii.  23 

.       246 

vii.  16 

59 

iv.  I  sq.  . 

.       246 

vii.  22  sq. 

326 

iv.  8 

.       246 

viii.  19 

51 

vi.  I 

.       211 

ix.  2     . 

262 

viii.  I 

246 

ix.  22  sq. 

396 

viii.  2 

.       260 

X.6    :     . 

78 

viii.  3 

16,  246 

X.  7      . 

51 

viii.  7  sq. 

.       246 

X.  12      . 

64 

viii.  12     . 

292, 397 

xii.  2    . 

6 

8,387 

viii.  14     . 

•      319 

xiii.  4  sq. 

247 

viii.  16    . 

.      355 

xiii.  16 

96 

ix.  9 

.      283 

XV.  I      . 

25.5 

6,  262 

Z.  I 

.      259 

xvi.  19 

380 

X.  8 

.      260 

xvii.  4  . 

61 

X.9 

256,257 

xvii.  2 

21 

X.  II 

.      256 

XX.  8  sq. 

229 

X.  12 

.     256 

xxiii.  9 

30 

X.  13 

•      256 

xxiii.  24 

391 

X.  14 

.      252 

xxiii.  29 

377 

X.  15 

252, 256 

xxiii.  36 

204 

X.  16 

•     256 

xxviii.  I  sq.  . 

233 

X.  20 

.      256 

xxix.  22  sq.   . 

234 

xii.  2 

.        16 

XXX.  6  . 

52 

xvi.  6 

.     362 

xxxi.  3 

385 

xvii.  2 

5 

xxxi.  20 

61 

xviii.  25 

.     282 

xxxi.  35 

203 

XX.  6 

.     216 

xxxii.  14 

25 

XX.  15 

216 

xxxii.  17 

188 

XX.  32 

.     386 

xxxii.  19 

.      287 

xxi.  5 

5 

xxxiii.  25 

■     273 

XXX.  I 

.     236 

xxxviii.  16 

55 

xxxi.  8 

14 

xxxix.  12 

.        58 

xxxii.  7  sq. 

.     208 

xlv.  4  sq. 

220 

xxxiii.  17 

.     282 

xlv.  5   . 

.      220 

xxxvii.  I 

236,  246 

xlvi.  22 

•        33 

Xl.  I 

•     236 

xlviii.  II 

.        25 

xl.  3  sq. 

240,  243 

xlix.  20 

.        64 

xliii.  2 

.     265 

li.  2      . 

•      250 

xliii.  7 

.       61 

li.9       . 

•        27 

xliv.  2 

32 

li.  25     . 

.     257 

Hosea  i.  2 

212, 236 

Ezekiel  i. 

.      153 

ii.  10 

.     264 

i.  I 

.      248 

v.  II 

.       54 

i-3 

236, 259 

V.  15 

33.  34 

1.  4 

:ii,  257.259 

X.  II 

.      105 

i-5 

252,  259 

Xl.  10 

•       54 

ii.  7 

67,  166,  253 

xii.  II 

5 

i.  8 

•     253 

Joel  ii.  10   . 

.      208 

1.9 

•      253 

ii.  II    . 

209,  250 

1.  10 

67, 255 

iii.  I    . 

221 

i.  II 

253,  254 

iii.  3  sq. 

.      209 

i-  13 

14.  253.  256 

iii.  5    • 

.        46 

i.  14 

•     253 

Amos  ii.  9 

95.  247 

i-  15 

.       254. 256 

iii.  8 

229 

i.  16 

•     254 

iv.  13 

.     218 

i.  17 

253.  255 

vii.  7 

.     239 

i.  19 

•      255 

vii.  9 

24 

i.  20 

■-53. 

254.  255.  256 

viii.  2 

•     239 

i.  21 

•     255 

viii.  9  sq. 

.     208 

i.  22 

259, 260 

viii.  II 

40 

i.  26 

14. 259 

viii.  12 

.     227 

i.  27 

62, 257 

Jonah  ii.  11 

•      250 

i.  28 

240,  260 

Micah  i.  3  . 

.     208 

ii.  2  sq. 

.     246 

i.  4  • 

« 

.     208 

INDEX 


407 


Micah  iv.  1 1 

PACE 
18 

IHaluu  svxiv.  16 

vi.  3 

Nahum  i.  2 

Habakkuk  i.  12    . 

•      367 
•51. 77 

.      3H8 

xxkiv.  17 

XXXIV.  I<J 

xxxiv.  21 

5« 

4« 
.-90 

i.  13   • 

.18,65 

xzzv.  lu 

96 

i.  i4S<i. 
iii.  3    • 

.      287 
.       96 

xxxvi.  9  . 
xl.  9 

'!*'$: 

iii;  8    . 

106,  209 

xh.  3 

S6 

iii!  16  . 

100 

xlii.  3 

40 
>«4 

Zephaniah  i.  3  sq. 

.      205 

xiv.  10 

i.  12    . 

2'>2 

xlvi.  3 

109 

Haggai  i.  13 

•       237 

xlix.  3 

a) 

ii.  6  sq.       . 

208 

xlix.  13 

16 

Zecliariah  iii.  i  sq. 

298 

xlix.  21 

a»9 

iv.  I  sq. 

.       238 

1.  7  *<!• 

JJ6 

iv.  5     . 

.       240 

1.39 

i»6 

iv.  10 

58.61 

li.  3 

3&4 

V.  9      . 

66 

Ivi.  6 

39 

V.  II     . 

100 

Ivii.  12 

t9 

vi.  I  sq.        .          I 

06.  211.  239 

Iviii.  5 

14 

vi.  5    • 

166,  298 

Iviii.  13    . 

381 

xi.  7  sq. 

239. 247 

Ix.  4 

30« 

xiv.  I  sq.       . 

238.  239 

Ixii.  13 

aaa 

xiv.  4 

25.  37 

Ixv.  2 

«5 

xiv.  5  . 

32.  240 

Ixviii.  4     . 

105  tq. 

xiv.  6  sq.      . 

238 

Ixviii.  5    . 

loj.  107 

xiv.  9   . 

90 

Uxiii.  II  . 

.      »9« 

xiv.  10 

23 

Ixxiii.  20  . 

IS 

Malachii.  8           .          .          . 

360 

Ixxiii.  30  . 

w 

1.9 

269 

Ixxiii.  2K  . 

1.  II 

51 

Ixxvii.  17  tq. 

aoi) 

i.  12 

360 

Ixxviii.  z\  sq. 

a 

».  tyt 

iii.  6 

23 

Ixxviii    ?<) 

55 

iii.  13-18 

2qi 

Ixxviii.  40 

39 

iii.  17       . 

76 

Ixzxii.  $  . 

3 

Psalms  iii.  2 

25 

Ixxxii.  6  . 

363 

iii.  4 

23 

Ixxxii.  7  . 

aj 

iv.  5 

.  53,85,  159 

Ixxxix.  3 

39« 

vii.  14 

20 

Ixxxix.  15 

107 

viii.  4 

61,  98,  218 

Ixxxix.  30 

19 

viii.  5 

•        23 

xc.  3 

to 

viii.  6 

15 

xc  12 

aso 

viii.  8 

287 

xci.  3  »<1 

390 

X.  16 

203 

XCi.  7  »q. 

yto 

xi.  4 

58,  61 

xci.  14 

y»o 

xii.  7  sq. 

24 

xci.  IS     . 

aS9 

xvi.  8 

386 

xciv.  a 

«9 

xvii.  12     . 

14 

xciv.  10   . 

2! 

xviii.  0     • 

209 

xcvii.  3    . 

•2 

xviii.  II    . 

67 

C3 

3M 

xviii.  12   . 

.      265 

cL7 

a«» 

xviii.  31    . 

•      3" 

cii.  7                                               '* 

xix.  2 

159 

cii.  13       •                                     -« 

xix.  4 

159 

di.  36                                         ^» 

xix.  8 

232 

ciii.  13     .                                   ^ 

xix.  10     . 

:4.  3«o 

ciii.  19     .                                 •■'*• 

xxiv.  9     . 

259 

dv.  3                                  :     .  ;  I  • 

XXV.  10    . 

2; 

•0,  271 

dv.  4                                    '^s  160 

XXV.  14     • 

3 

dv.  s                                          wi 

dv.  i6                                           >" 
riv.  31                                         =^* 

xxvii.  8    . 

07 

xxix.  4     - 

61 

xxix.  0     . 

06 

dv.  34                                           *"» 

xxix.  10  . 

24 

cv.  30                                 ■■'      •■"* 

xxix.  II    . 

.     204 

CV.  33 

xxxiii.  4  • 

.      3"<) 

cv.  35 

xxxiii.  6  . 

\           33. 98 

evil.  34                        •         •       *' 

xxxiii.  15 

.     a87 

cvli.  33 

• 

• 

.     M9 

4o8 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Psalms  cxi.  3        .          .          .          .25 

cxiii.  9 

23 

cxv.  16 

.        198 

cxviii.  6 

•       389 

cxviii.  19 

•       259 

cxix.  89 

•          25 

cxix.  126 

9 

cxix.  144 

•      249 

cxxiii.  I    . 

•        23 

cxxxi.  I    . 

43 

cxxxv.  6  . 

.      308 

cxxxix.  5 

61 

cxxix.  24 

39 

cxliii.  8     . 

I 

cxliv.  3 

.      287 

cxliv.  4 

.      268 

cxliv.  5 

-        28 

cxlv.  9 

.      272 

cxlv.  16 

.      288 

cxlv.  18 

28 

cxlvii.  9 

.     288 

cxlvii.  18 

•      249 

cxlviii.  I  sq. 

•      203 

Proverbs  i.  6 

5 

ii.  4 

•      393 

iii.  15 

•      396 

iii.  19 

•      309 

iii.  22 

.        57 

iii.  27 

•      351 

iii.  32 

.        48 

iv.  15 

( 

57.  298 

iv.  9 

335 

iv.  22 

57 

v.  9 

396 

v.  17     . 

395 

vi.  32 

269 

vii.  6  sq. 

7.8 

viii.  4    . 

I 

viii.  II 

396 

viii.  35 

•        57 

X.  21     . 

•        54 

xi.  17    . 

•      351 

xiv.  15  . 

93 

xvi.  4    . 

■      274 

xvii.  16 

.        48 

xix.  3    . 

2( 

)8,  269 

xix.  20  . 

.       46 

xxi.  25  sq. 

47 

xxii.  17 

I 

xxiii.  33 

97 

xxiv.  13  sq. 

40 

XXV.  2 

211 

XXV.   II 

6 

XXV.  16 

42 

XXV.  17 

1.367 

XXV.  27 

40,  43 

xxvii.  I 

20 

xxvii.  26 

372 

xxix.  II 

55 

XXX.  12  sq.     . 

328 

xxxi.  3 

47 

xxxi.  10 

262 

Job  i.  I  sq. 

296 

i.  6      . 

. 

296 

i.  II     . 

. 

53 

ii.  I      . 

, 

286 

ii  5      . 

• 

28 

Job  ii.  6     . 
ii.8       . 
iii.  5     . 
iii.  26   . 
iv.  13  . 
iv.  16  . 
iv.  17  sq. 
iv.  18  sq, 
iv.  19  . 
v.  6  sq. 
v.  27    . 
viii.  6  sq. 
ix.  22  sq. 
x.  10  sq. 
xi.  5     . 
xi.  6  sq. 
xi.  12 
xii.  12 
xiv.  20 
XV.  15  sq. 
XX.  26  . 
xxi.  6  sq. 
xxi.  21 
xxi.  23  sq 
xxii.  5 
xxii.  12 
xxii.  21 
xxiii.  13 

XXV.  3 

XXV.  6 
xxvii.  6 
XX  viii.  12 
xxviii.  20 
xxxi.  27 
xxxii.  I 
xxxii.  5 
xxxii.  9 
xxxii.  16 
xxxii.  21 
xxxiii.  14  sq 
xxxiii.  23 
xxxiii.  29 
xxxiv.  20 
xxxiv.  21  sq 
xxxiv.  23  sq 

XXXV.  II 

xxxvi.  II 
xxxvii.  6 
xxxvii.  21 
xxxviii.  7 
xxxviii.  12 
xxxviii.  13 
xxxviii.  33 
tlii.  5 
xlii.  6  . 
xlii.  7  . 
Song  i.  2 

i.  4     . 

i.  6     . 

i.  16  . 

ii.  15 

V.  2    . 
Ruth  ii.  12. 

iii.  9  . 

iii.  13. 

iv.  2  . 

iv.  7  . 


PAGE 

298 

301 

34 

32 

17 

240 

301 

276 

268 

270 

119 

301 

300 

300 

61 

301 

45 

393 

16 

276 

213 

300 

300 

300 

300 

277 

389 

308 

167 

268 

54 

394 
45 

364 
99 

300 

45.394 
25 
287 
302 
302 
302 
302 
303 
302 

303 

58 

200 

3 

^59 

393 

57 
164 
301 

)i,  303 
300 

391 
327 
396 
248 

239 

387 

57 

57 

100 

373 
53 


INDEX 


Lamentations  i.  9 
ii.  0 
iv.  16 
V.  19 
Ecclesiastes  i.  4  . 
1.9   . 
i.  16 
ii.  12 
ii.  15 
ii.  16 
iii.  II 
iii.  14 
iii.  19 
iiL  21 
iv.  17 
V.  I  . 
vii.  I  6 
vii.  24 
vii.  29 
viii.  4 
ix.  14  sq. 
X.  2  . 
X.  10 
X.  20 
xii.  7 
xii.  II 
Esther  i.  17 
V.  9 


INDEX 

Targum  O 
Genesis  ii.  6 
iii.  5 

vi.  5 
vi.  12 
XX.  3 

xxii.  14 
xxvi.  8 
xlvi.  4 
Exodus  viii.  22 
xvii.  16 
XX.  19 
xxiv.  10  . 


'<>.  22 


203 


PAGE 
369 

7.  3tx) 
Si 

3.  201 
203 
209 

17 
161 

07 

05 

3"'> 

203 

25 
25 
19 

43.  fi7.  392 

43 

4.  45 

2O9 

308 

200 

54 

46 

247 
55 

32« 
33 
24 


OF  QUOT.^TIONS  FROM  THE  TARGUMIM. 

KELOS. 


PACE 

2X5  Exodus  xxxii.  16 

14  XXXIli.   2  { 

64  XXXI  \.  o   . 

64  Takgum  Jonatmam 

236  Judges  X.  16 

355  Is.iiali  ii.  6 

(>  xii.  3 

35  xiv.  8 

35')  xxiv.  23    . 

37  Ez*kiel  i.  14 

222  X.  13       . 

37  Zcchari.ih  xiv.  4  . 


INDEX  OF  QUOT.\TION.S  FROM  THE  MH)RASHIM. 


Rabboth  on 
Genesis  i.     . 

ii. 

iii. 

iv- 

v.  . 

viii. 

X.  . 

xii. 

xxi. 

xxiv. 

xxvii. 

XXXV. 

xliv. 

xlviii. 

1.    . 

U.  . 

Ivi. 

Ixiii. 

Ixv. 

Ixviii. 

Ixxviii. 


PAGE 

162,  210,  213.  267 

159 

212 

214 

210 

211 

•.  164,  166 

201 

66 

20 

62 

30^ 

3" 

-17 

i'>i 

l6i 

217 

233 

253 

106 

161 


Genesis  Ixxz. 
xcvui. 
xcix. 
Exodus  Ail. 
xxxii. 
x»i. 
I>cviticus  i. 
Numbers  xv. 
On  Smiik  i.  I 
On  Ecclrsiaites  i.  j 
ii.  la 
Iii.  13  . 
X.  7     • 
Sifra,  on  I>cviticu*  x.  3 

XIX.  3 

XX   7 

T.nnliuma  on  Gm.  xxviii.  1  j 
I'irke  di    Rabbi   Kliffcf— 

iii. 

xiii. 

xviii.    . 


409 


PACI 


Estlirr  vu.  rt 
Daniel  li.  i<) 

,  ( 

vi.  23 
vii.  I 

vii.  a 
vii.  15 
vii.  16 

•  i4  J 

•  S4^ 

vii. -viii.    . 

viii.  I  ftq.  . 
viii.  13 

viii.  ir> 

< 

viiL  27 
ix.  21 
X.  6 

-  < 

X.  8.  9 

xii.  7 
i;zra  i.  I      . 
.Nehi'iniah  ix.  6    . 

3  1% 
t  l"» 
HI 

f  1 

xiii.  27 
I  Ghronidcs  xii.  18 
xii.  38 
zxviii.  9 
xxviii.  II 

-4' 

54 

^8  6 

XXIX.  25 
2  Chronicles  xv.  i  sq. 

-■ « ." 

xxiv.  20 
xzzvi.  16 

15« 

PAGI 

^  \ 
1« 


pjr.t 


i\7 
«•> 
J 

Ibt 

I'  J 

■  '   4 


S.  1 


166 


go.  aoo 

«I7 
109 


410 


/NDEX 


INDEX  OF  QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  TALMUD. 


MiSHNAH    BeRAKOT. 

PAGE 

V.  3 

• 

Shabbath. 

• 

• 

372 

vi.  lo  . 

• 

• 

. 

335 

Hagigah. 

ii.  I 

• 

YOMA. 

• 

• 

43 

iii.  3 

■ 

•                   • 

SOTAH. 

• 

• 

368 

i-7    . 

• 

•                           • 

Sanhedrin. 

• 

• 

286 

X.  I    . 

• 

Abot. 

• 

• 

223 

i.  I     . 
ii.  I,  I. 
ii.  17 
iii.  13 
iv.  13 
V.  6,  I. 
V.  13-14. 

• 
• 
• 
• 

i. 

•  • 
• 

•  • 

•  * 

•  • 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

« 
• 

• 

• 

347 
64 
II 
372 
348 
99 
76 

i.  I.  III. 


i.i.  III. 


MiDDOT. 


Tamid. 


Babyl.  Talmud. 
Berakot. 

5a,  Afflictions  of  love 

7a.  Moses  beheld  the  simihtude 

of  God,  etc.  .... 
10  ft,  Elisha  is  called  holy,  etc. 
i8a,  The  righteous,  even  after 

death,  are  said  to  be  alive 
22a,  The  words  of  the  Law  are  not 

subject  to  defilement     . 
25a,  The  mouth  of  a  swine  is 

dirt  itself  .... 
2Sa,  In  holy  matters  we  must 

rise,  etc.  .... 
33a,  Use  of  attributes  in  prayers 
55ft,  A   dream   interpreted  in   a 

dream  .... 

57fl.  Serve  God  with  your  good 

and  your  evil  inclinations 
57b,    Dream    is    one-sixtieth    of 

prophecy      .... 
63,  It  is  time  to  act,  etc.    . 
78,  The  righteous  live  even  in 

death  .... 

Shabbat. 
30a,  Solomon  contradicts  himself 
30a,  A  prophet  is  not  inspired 

when  in  a  state  of  sadness 
31a,  When  man  appears  for  his 

trial,  how  he  is  examined 
35  b.  If  so,  you  expose  your  words 

to  different  interpretations    . 
53a,  No  death  without  sin     286, 
67a,  Ways  of  the  Amorite  . 
87^,  Laws  revealed  at  Marah     . 
88&,    The    pious    do   everything 
out  of  love    .... 


367 

367 

285 

18 
263 

57 

369 

371 

22 
85 

238 

298 

225 
9 

57 

II 

227 

394 

328 
304 
334 
326 

303 


Shahbat. 

92a,  The  spirit  of  prophecy  only 

rests  on  the  wise,  brave,  and 

rich      ..... 

1076,  God  feedeth  all  creatures', 

etc.      •  .  .  .  . 

119&,    Two    angels    accompany 

every  person 
146a,  The  serpent  infected  Eve 

with  poison,  etc. 
i49«.   Let  your   thought   never 
be  vacant  from  God 
Erubin. 

1 8a,  .A.dam  and  Eve  were  at  first 

one  being     .... 

Pesa/itm. 

49a,  The  pious  keep  away  from 

banquets       .... 

56a    Book  of  Medicine 

1 1 8a,  God  does  not  deprive  any 

being  of  its  due      . 
iiga,  .Mysteries  of  the  Law 
Hagigah. 

7a,  Visit  thy  friend  sparingly    . 

116,  Ma'a<:eh     bereshit,  ma'aseh 

mercabah     .  .  .3,  29, 

12a,  The  heavens  and  the  earth 

were  created  simultaneously  . 

126,  There  are  seven  heavens     . 

13a,  The  elders  of  Pumbaditha 

and  R.  Joseph  about  ma'aseh- 

mercabah       .... 

13^,  Isaiah  saw  all  that  Ezekiel 

saw,  etc.       .... 

13a,  Explanation  of  haslnnal     . 

146,   Four  entered   the   garden, 

fttc.        .  .  .  .42,  215 

15a,   In  the  world  above  there 

is  no  bodily  enjoyment  . 
1 6a,    Every    person    is    accom- 
panied by  two  angels     . 
Rosh-ha-shanah. 

iia.  All  things  were  created  with 

full  size         .... 

17^.  Explanation  of  Exod.  xxiv. 

6 

216,  Solomon  not  greater  than 

Moses  .... 

3ra,  The  world  will  remain  six 

thousand  years,  etc 

Yotna. 

29a,    Thoughts    about    sin    are 

worse  than  sin       . 
30ft,  Pronunciation  of  the  Tetra- 
grammaton  .... 
67 &, These  things  I  have  ordained, 
obey  unconditionallv 
Succah. 

45'',    I    noticed   how    few   were 
the  good       .... 
T a' unit. 
2a,  True  worship  is  the  service 
in  the  heart  .... 
30&,  Moses  did  not  prophesy  dur- 
ing God's  anger  with  Israel  . 


220 

288 

299 
217 
386 

256 

263 
337 

2S6 
251 

367 

44,48 

213 
105 

258 

259 
260 


24 
299 

216 
76 

394 
209 

263 

92 
310 

45 

386 
227 


INDEX 


411 


Megillah. 

13a,    Moses   was   father   in    the 

knowledue  of  tlie  Law  . 
Yebamot. 
626,  It  is  a  laudable  act  to  marry 

the  sister's  daughter 
1036,  The  serpent  infected  Eve, 

etc.      ..... 

104a,  How  great  is  his  boldness 

in  likening  the  Creator  to  His 

creatures      .... 
Keiubot. 

4^,  fyia.  What  a  woman  in  her 

separation  is  allowed  to  do    . 
13a,    Agadic    interpretation    of 

Deut.  xxiii.  14       .  .  . 

Kiddushin. 

21b,  Deut.  xxi.  10  is  only  a  con- 
cession to  man's  weakness 

30&,  When  lust  overcomes  you 
turn  to  the  Law    . 

31a,  Obligatory  and  voluntary 
performance  of  God's  precepts 

31a,  Haughtiness 

356,  Lev.  xxi.  I,  2,  applies  to  the 
sons  of  Aaron,  not  the  daugh- 
ters     ..... 

39a,  Sowing  diverse  seeds . 

396,  Explanation  of  Deut.  xxii. 
7   Good  and  evil  inclinations 

710,  Name  of  God  of  twelve  let- 
ters    ..... 

Giitin. 
60b,  Things  communicated  vivd 
voce  must  not  be  written  down 

Nedarim. 

206,  The  modesty  of  the  Sages  . 

39& 

Siiccah. 

14a,  Imitate  the  ways  of  God    . 
38a,  Explanation  of  Num.  vi.  27 
Baba-Kamma. 

15a,  Job  never  existed 
50a,  He  who  says  that  God  re- 
mits  punishment,    will   suffer 
for  it  .... 

Baba-mezi^a. 

31&,  The  Torah  speaketh  the  lan- 
guage of  man 

326,  Cruelty  to  animals    . 
Baba-batra. 

12a,  Explanation  of  Ps.  xc.  12  . 


PACE 

394 

351 
217 


62 

368 
353 

350 

377 

285 
391 

369 
337 

320 

92 

108 

391 
299 

198 
91 

296 
286 


35 
288 


230 


rAci 

Haha-hiitta, 

i.S(i,  Satan  and  pvll  tndinati'   . 

are  tlic  %mi\v.  .  .      29^ 

1 6a,     Condcnin-ttioii     of     Job'* 

nlti-ratio-s    ... 
i(ia,  .MiKlcsiy   . 
17a.  Death  of  M. 
22ii,  Figurative  - 

"  to  cat  "     .  .40 

2sa,   The   Shechimih   is   in    th« 

west     .... 
iiha.  Should  not  the  I^w.  ptc 
Abodah-iaruh. 

-•(.,'1   MiKh-sty  J77 

546,  ivvcrything  fulIowsitsnalurAl 

course.       ....        310 
Sanhfdrtn. 

jiSft,  (iod  does  nothin;'  with'»»it 

conlcniplatinK  the  ^ 
566,  Laws  revralrtl  .t! 
Oib,  I-A'il  inclination  acl^  ux  iii  • 

fronj  his  vouth       .  . 

916,  Hx[>lanatioii  of  Nch.  ix.  b 

and  Job  xxxviii.  7  .  .      1)9 

97a,   The   world   remains  6,000 

years  ....     «oo 

990,  King  Mannssch  ni«ks  at  poc        "^ 

tions  of  the  Law    .  .     580 

Macrot. 
24a.  Israel  at  Sinai  heard  only  the 

first  two  commandments  IJ2 

Hora  yot. 
.Sfl.  Idolatry  equals  apostasy       .     3J0 

Menahot. 

looi).  The  Tctragrammaton  91 

HulUn. 

jb.  rinchas  b.  Yair  .  2*3 

13a,  Thev  rnntinuc  in  the  ways 

of  their  fathiT'-      .  .  .       JJ 

60a,  All  things  were  created  with 

full  size.  Plc  ...     ai6 

77a,  Wa>'S  of  the  Am'Tite  .  .      334 

90a,  Scriptiifp   riuplo>-s   hyper- 
bolic expressions    .  847 
i6oa,    Ixprosy,   punishment   (r» 
slander          .          .  3*9 

Keritot. 

7a.  Violation  of  a  handmaid  34" 

Jet.  Talm.  Rtiakot. 

i. I,  The  thickness  of  each  sphere     178 

Peak. 
v.  7,  We  must  not  cxiliciie  Aga- 
dic sayings  ....       It 


REFERENCES  TO  WORKS  OF  MAIMON1DE& 


PAGE 


Coram,  on  Mishnah — 

Introduction    . 

108.  347 

Hagigah  ii.  7    . 

.     211 

Sanh.  X.  I 

4 

Abot— 

2 

iDtroduction    . 

55.  108,  331.  370 

PACE 

i.  17         .  •       «53.  39a 

v.  6 >* 

V.7 »« 

Mishneh-tiir.ih— 

2,  7.  32.  51.  55.  «o6.  JO"'  U3.''  f^"»- 


412                                            INDEX 

REFERENCES  TO  WORKS  ON  SCIENCE  AND  PHILOSOPHY. 

PAGE 

Aristotle  (Pseudo) — 

PAGE 

Abu-becr,  ibn-al-Zaig   138, 164, 196, 198, 

Istimachis 

•                   • 

319 

316 

On  Talismans 

,                   , 

319 

Abu-nasr  al-Farabi     128,  138,  177,  181, 

Euclid,  X.  . 

, 

122 

187,  290 

Galen         .          .          .121 

. 133. 171 

,  269 

Alexander  Aphrodisiensis      41,  156,  173 

Hermes  (Pseudo) 

319 

Al-kabici,  Astronomy  .          .       281, 282 

Ibn  Adi 

,                   , 

109 

Alrazi,  Metaphys.          .          .          .     207 

Ibn  Aflah    . 

•                        a 

164 

Alsarb         .       '  .          .          .          .     319 

Ibn  Ganah 

,                        , 

57 

Andalusian  scholars      ...       57 

John  Philiponus 

,                        , 

109 

Apollonius,  Conic  Sections    .          .130 

Nabatean  Agriculture  . 

315.  318, 

334. 

Aristotle — 

338 

Physics     .          .      121,  148,  171,  173, 

Peripatetics 

•                        • 

145 

176, 197 

Platon 

27.  161 

173 

Metaphysics     .           80,  148,  151,  186 

Ptolemy,  Almagest 

III 

167 

De  Coelo          .             18,  163,  176,  186 

Sons  of  Shakir,  Problems 

,                        , 

122 

Nik.  Eth.          .          .          .       226,  377 

Thabit 

,                        , 

277 

De  Part.  Anim.         .          .          .     272 

Themis  tius. 

,                      , 

no 

Trop 177 

Tomtom     .         .         . 

319.  335 

346 

GENERAL  INDEX. 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Abraham    . 

. 

315  sq. 

Cities  of  refuge    . 

•      343 

Accidents    . 

68 

,  120,  123 

Clepsydra  . 

.      295 

Actions,  division  of 

•       367 

Comparison 

78  sq. 

—  support  of  ideas 

.       218 

Compensation     . 

342  sq. 

Actuality — potentiality 

.  45,  78,  147 

Courage 

.      229 

Adam 

316,319 

Covenant   . 

321. 335 

—  book  of 

.       318 

Creation          .    109  sq 

,  133  sq.,  171,  307 

AdmissibiUty 

.        127 

—  Purpose  of     . 

171, 307 

Alexander  Aphrodisiensis 

•        173 

Allegories  ...       4 

201  sq.,  247 

Daniel 

•     243 

Althea 

.       318 

Death 

.     267 

Amalek 

349.  381 

Demons 

•      359 

Ammonites 

•      349 

Design  in  Nature 

184  sq. 

Angels       .       36,  57,  160  sc 

iq- 

167,  169 

Determination     . 

•    135.  299  sq. 

—  prophet 

296, 356 

Dreams 

.      240 

Animals,  imagination  of 

130,  371 

Edomites    . 

351. 381 

—  cruelty  to 

•      371 

'Eglah  'Aruphah 

•     343 

—  Providence  to  species  of 

.      285 

Egyptians 

•       352, 359 

Apparent  (ethical)  truths 

14  sq. 

Elements    . 

114,  165,  213.254 

'Arabot 

.      105 

Emanation,  influence 

288, 289 

Ash'ariya  . 

108, 125 

Epicureans 

120,  173, 282 

Astrology  . 

170, 333 

Eternity  of  Universe 

148,  154.  171  sq. 

Astronomy.          .          .     i,  ] 

[64, 

167, 196 

Evils 

265, 290, 389 

Atoms 

69,  120 

Existence  . 

59  sq. 

Attributes  I. 

ch 

lii.  sqq. 

Eccentricity 

196  sqq. 

—  the  thirteen    . 

75  sq. 

Faith 

.       67 

Ba'al  Pe'or 

•     357 

Family 

250,  351.  372 

Balaam      ...         2 

.35, 

237. 242 

Fear  of  God 

317. 392 

Baruch,  son  of  Neriyah 

.     220 

Festivals    . 

352  sq. 

Bastard 

•      379 

Forces  in  a  body 

146 

Bat-Kol      . 

.     238 

Form 
Free  will     . 

13, 103,  148, 261 
125,  249 

Capital  punishment 

345  sq. 

Friends 

•      373 

Castration 

•      379 

Cattle  among  idolaters 

320,  359 

Geonim 

.     285 

Cause-agent 

102  sq. 

Gideon 

.      241 

Centaur 

89 

Glory  of  God 

•     34.  29,  96 

Chance 

249,  282 

God,  attributes  of 

29,  75 

Change 

.      145 

—  cause  of  good,  not  c 

)f  evil           266  sq 

Cherubim   . 

252, 356 

—  definition  of   . 

49,70 

Circumcision 

378  sq. 

—  enemies  of 

50 

f^ 


INDEX 


41.3 


God,  image  of     . 

—  immutability  of 

—  throne  of 

—  will  of 

—  wisdom  of 

—  word  of 

—  work  of 
Golden  calf 
GrifQa 


PAGE 
13 

•  78 
21 

140,  310 
310  Sq. 

•  07 
.    o3 

•  3'>4 

89 


Hagar 

Hagiographa 

—  Halizah 

Harmony  of  the  spheres 

Hayyot       .  .  .  .67 

Heavens    .         23  sq.,  148,  192, 

Hermes 

Hezekiah,  Book  of 

Holiness 

Holy  language     . 

Hcsea 

Idolatry   .  50  sq.i  315,  332, 

Ignorance,  the  source  of  evil 


63. 


Imagination         .  .  64, 

Impossibility       .  139,  141, 

Indians 

Infinite       .  .  .         131, 

Influence    .  .  .         170, 

Intellect     .... 

—  active    .  .  .         182, 

—  hylic      .... 
Intelligences 
Intemperance 

Isaiah  .... 

Ishak  (Sabean)     . 
Israelites,  science  amongst  the 
Isthimachis 


238 
242 
374 
if'3 
252  sq, 
212.  259 

■  319 

•      337 

327.  368 

264 

212, 236 

348,  380 
.  267 
130, 225 
279.  328 

■  359 
135.  149 
289,  359 

100  sq. 
386,  391 

lOI 

65.  i-ifi 

47 

203,  259 

.   318 

108, 168 

.  318 


Jacob 

Jehaziel  son 
I  eremiah 
Job 
Joseph 
Joseph  ibn 
Joshua 
Jubilee 
Judah 
J  udges 


.36,227,237 

of  Zechariah       .  .     142 

.  220,  228  sq.,  326 

242,  296  sqq. 

250,  364 

Akrin  ...         1 

221,  224,  383 

340 


107  sq. 


Kalam 

Karet 

Ketubah  (marriage  settlement) 

Knowledge 


•  374 
.   241 

,  120  sq 

•  345 

•  375 
40,  384 


Laban 236 

Language,  Origin  of      .  .  .     21S 

Law  (of  Moses)     .  232,  310  sq.  351 

Laws  relating  to  trustees       .  6,  331 

the  bitter  waters         .  .     374 

blood         .  .  •        352.  371 

—  —  castration  .  •  •     379 

cities  of  refuge   .  .  •      343 

cleanness  and  uncleanncss  .     3(>h 

damages   •  .  •  -342 

dietary  1.  .         •      330. 370 


L.iw>;  rchiilti^- (o  divorce 

—  -  festivals    .... 

—  —  liritbiirn   .... 
fruit   of    trr«   in    the   fir»» 

thrcf  yc.irs     . 

—  —  inhont.inri! 

intermixture  of  divers  »p«ci« 

—  —  •  leprosy 
I  evitcs 

—  —  loans 

—  —  niarri.iRe  . 

marriaKc  with  the  <i.n.i-^ti 

wife's  sister 

meat  .uid  milk 

murder 

—  —  Noah 

—  —  oath 

poor 

priests      .  .         .       i%r. 

—  —  |)rostitutlon 

—  —  red  heifer  . 
sanrtuarv. 

—  —  sha'atnez  (garments  ol  woul 

and  linen) 
shaving  the  be.»rJ 

—  —  shehitah    . 

slaves        .  .  .        }ii 

theft 

tithes 

—  —  trade 

—  —  trustees    . 

—  —  vows 

—  —  workmen 

—  —  worship  (divine),  III 


1 

J  J* 

317 

*  ( 


S7« 

"I 

< 


\7t 


3>J 


Levia 

Logic 
Ix)ve 
Lust 


than 
of  God 


..  xltv. 
li.sqq. 

I.  4'-.  ^"5 


47 


■     54.  3« 
226.  254, 


Ma'aseh  bereikil  .  2,  27.  zii.asi 

Ma'asch  Mercabah  3.44,48,  107.  211.251 

Magic 3J7 

Man,  definition  of  14 

—  as  mif'rricri^mos  .       113  sqq- 

—  object  and  aim   of .  .  .      a6i 

—  perfections  >  J.  IlL,  ch.  xxvii..  Uv. 

—  position  I'l.  in  the  Universe 

—  a  Social  being 
Man.iss.il) 
Maiidr.'.;;;  T.' 
Manna 
>'anoah 
Marcassite  . 
Mathem.itirs 
Materia  prima     . 
Matter  7.  27.  3'.  » 
Mazzal  (constclUlion)  . 
Mercury 
Metals 
Mctaphvsirs 
M<'thii-i<-l.ih 
Mirrcri-snios 
Midr.ishic  interpretjlioo 
Miracles      .           .  199 
Miriam 
Moab 


«3- 


I.  J.  41 


II 


177 


M5 


Ift4 

.l«. 

2  It 
•0- 

151 


10.  334. 


>49 


414 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Modesty     ....       331,377 
Moloch        .  .  .  .  .164 

Moriah        .....     355 
Moses         17,  18,  53,  83  sq.,  93,  229,  244. 

35G,  390, 
Motion  33.  68,  70,  121,  124,  175.  156 

164,  174.  179,  185,  265 
Mutakallemim     i,  167  sq.,  120, 174, 178, 

265 
Mu'tazilah.  .  .         108,124,284 

Mysteries  of  the  Law      i,  44,  48  sq.,  108, 

223,  249, 251 


Nabathean  agriculture 
Names  of  God 
Nature 
Nazaritism 
Numbers    . 

—  four 

—  seven    . 


Og 

On 
Omniscience 

Pascal  lamb 

Passions 

Patriarchs  . 

Phineas 

Physics 

Piyyulim    . 

Politeness 

Potentiality 

Prayer 

Prescience 

Priests 

Prophets  3,  26,  60,  219 

Proverbs    . 

Providence 

Psalm  of  mishaps 

Punishments 

Purity 

Quality  and  Quantity 
Quintessence 


Reason 
Rebellious  son 
—  elder 
Relation     . 
Release,  Year  of 
Repentance 
Retaliation 
Righteousness 


•  313 
89  sq. 

y8,  116,189,328 

•  372 
137, 146 

.      166 
206,  352 

.     248 
.     318 
280,  290  sq. 

•  361 
47,  238,  261,  327 

.     388 

•  237 
2,  46,  385 

86 

•  327 
78, 147 

331. 354.  386 

292 

323. 339. 357 

sq-.  305,  355.  385 

7.  262 

282,  368 

•  389 

•  350 

•  327 

70  sq. 
.      113 


40,  131,  388 
327,  346 

•  348 
71,  79 

•  340 

•  332 

•  344 

•  342 


Saraael 

Samuel 

Shehitah 

Satan 

Scapego;ft  . 

Senses 

Shema' 

Shemoneh-' esreh  . 

Simon  the  Just    . 

Sins 

Sinai,  Revelation  on 

Solomon 

Sons  of  the  Prophets 

Sotah 

Soul  56.  io5, 123,  137, 146 

Spheres     156,  164,  167,  i 

Spirit,  Holy  {of  the  Lord) 

Spirits  (demons) 

Stars 

—  worship  of 

Studies 

Substance 

Sun 

Synhedrion 

Synagogue,  Great 


Tables  of  stone    . 

Talismans,  Book  of 

Tammuz     . 

Temple 

Time 

Tomtom     . 

Tree  of  Knowledge 

Tree  of  Life 

Trials 

Trinity 

Turcs 

Universalia  (ideals) 
Universe     . 

—  origin  of 

—  end  of   . 

Urim  and  Tummim 

Vacuum 

Venus 

Vision 

Wine 

Wisdom 

Woman 


PAGE 
.       217 

•  240 

•  311 

217,  293  sq. 

•  366 
63,  132,  325 

354,  387 

354.  3S7 

92 

•  304 
21,  265,  305 

5,  202,  243 
20 

•  364 
sq.,  202,  270, 

29S,  312,  395 
86,   192,   196, 

253. 277 

.      242 

363 

164,  196,  277 

93.  315 

I,  44sq.,  385 

127,  148 

.      165 

•  347 
.        85 


98 

•  144 

•  314 
323,  355,  307 

121,  171,  174,  212 

•  318 
.      217 

217 

304  sq. 

.        67 

315,384 

59.  289 

113,  164 

.      171 

201 

.      242 

121 

.      164 

212,  225,  234 

.      372 

•  393 
333,  350,  364,  369 


Sabbath  .  ,  99,  218,  326,  346,  352 
Sabeans  94, 315,  332,  356,  362,  368,  380 
Sacrifice     .         .  323,  348,  359,  369 


Zechariah,  the  prophet 

—  son  of  Zehoiada 
Zedekiah,  son  of  Chenaanah 

—  son  of  Ma'aseiah 


238,  247 

242 

.     233 

•     234 


Butler  &  Tanner,  The  Selwood  Printing  Works,  Frome,  and  London- 


/A 


::aImg:.id£S, 


The   guide    for   tr.e 
-j^^  perplexc^s 


F^^ 


^^0  605  765 


